^3AIN(1-3WV 


^OFCALIFO%, 


■FCALIFO% 


V< 


ytfAyv88iB^      ^Aavaan-^ 


,  \W UNIVERS/a 
<T?1 


^lOSANCElfj^ 


"%I3AIN(HWV 


^-IIBRARY^ 


-%>3I1W 


,\WE1'NIVER%. 
<ril30NVSO^x 


.VIOS  ANCELij> 


> 

^/smaim^ 


^UIBRARYQc 


^OJITVJrlO^ 


•oAUIBRARY^ 


^ojiiyho*' 


^OFCMIFO/?^ 


y0Aavagn# 


^EUN!VER% 


<TJ130NV  SOl^ 


lOSANCEtfj^ 


^3AINlV3\WN 


^OFCAillFO/?^ 


y<?Aava8ii^      ^AavHan-i^ 


S? 


:lfj> 


%13AINiHt\V 


LIBRARY^       ^HIBRARYtf^ 


^ojiivj-jo^"      ^odiivojo^ 


IVERS/a 

en 


<TJ133NV-S01 


o^lOS  ANCELfj> 


= 


-< 

fr/SMAiNiutw* 


%a3AIN 


^~> 


$=nf  liinr 


'■LIF0ft^> 


vaaitt^      y<?AavaaiH^ 


o 
<Til3DNVS0'i 


^lOS-ANKlfj^ 


Or 


% 


t=         < 


'^3AIN03WV 


33 


;iyqa 


i<yn 


FRto 


^f;ir 


%L 


■UBRARYQr 


*%)3 ITV3-J' 


Aavaan  \ 


_rfi 


$ 


ER%. 


JLJ 

1  c\ 

oc 


^EUNIVEF 


Elf, 


2? 


•'c/Aovdalli^ 


2    £ 


33 


''/- 

tt 


rn  g 


%  ^ 


c> 


^5. 


*K* 


^ 


VlOSANC 


-< 


S/A 


O  u_ 


"%■ 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 


BY  THE 
SAME  AUTHOR 


HERALDS  AND  HERALDRY  IN  BEN 
JONSON'S  PLAYS,  MASQUES,  AND 
ENTERTAINMENTS.      1907. 

TALKS  ON  THEME  WRITING  AND 
KINDRED  TOPICS.     1909. 

SHORT  THEMES:  A  FRESHMAN  MAN- 
UAL FOR  THE  FIRST  SEMESTER,  1909. 
SECOND    EDITION,    ENLARGED,    1910. 

SHORT   THEMES   AND   LONG.      1915. 


JAMES    SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 
From  the  portrait  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford 


T8ITAMAMO  (Y  3  J  fl  I  H  2    23MAI 


JAMES  SHIRLEY 

DRAMATIST 

A  BIOGRAPHICAL 
AND  CRITICAL  STUDT 


BY 

ARTHUR  HUNTINGTON  NASON 

M.A.   (BOWDOIN);  PH.D.  (COLUMBIA) 

ASSISTANT  PROFESSOR  OF  ENGLISH  IN 
NEW  YORK  UNIVERSITY  AND  INSTRUC- 
TOR IN  UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


»    -it 


•      r  ' 


ARTHUR  H.  NASON,  Publisher 
UNIVERSITY  HEIGHTS,  NEW  YORK.  CITY 

1915 


46146 


Copyright,  191  5,  by 
Arthur   Huntington  Nason 


•     ••    •  ••*  -*. 

•  •    • 

•  ••  •  •/  • 

•  •  •  •    ' 


••:  • 


•  •  •  • .  • 


•    •••••-•   *  ■ . . 


•  ••         •      ••   ■  ••      •      •      *  •      •   .•' 


•    •   •  •  * 


% 


o 


«  PREFACE 

TO  eliminate  at  least  a  few  of  the  inaccuracies 
of  fact  and  inference  that  have  perverted 
previous  accounts  of  Shirley's  life;  to  re- 
move the  popular  impression — fostered  by  many  a 
better  critic  than  Charles  Kingsley— that  Shirley  is 
merely  a  contributor  to  the  comedy  of  manners  at  its 
worst;  to  trace  Shirley's  development  as  a  dramatist 
from  the  realistic  to  the  romantic  school ;  and  to  show 
^  the  quality  of  his  work  not  merely  in  the  comedy  of 

(jj  manners   and   of   humors  but  notably  in   dramatic 

i  romance,  in  romantic  comedy,  and  in  romantic  trag- 

edy: such,  in  the  fields  of  scholarship  and  apprecia- 
k  tion,  is  the  endeavor  of  this  biographical  and  critical 

study  of  the  principal  dramatic  poet  of  the  reign  of 
^  Charles  the  First. 

^  Begun  under  the  inspiring  influence  of  Professor 

r!  William    Peterfield    Trent,    continued    under    the 

friendly  oversight  of  Professor  William  Witherle 
Lawrence,  and  completed  under  the  searching  criti- 
cism of  Professor  Ashley  Horace  Thorndike,  the 
work  here  submitted  is  the  result  of  many  satisfying 
hours  of  labor  in  the  graduate  school  of  Columbia 
University. 

To  these  gentlemen  preeminently,  and  to  the  other 


PREFACE 

members  of  the  department  of  English  and  Compara- 
tive Literature  at  Columbia,  my  thanks  are  due;  yet 
my  debt  elsewhere  must  not  pass  unacknowledged. 
To  the  officers  of  the  libraries  of  Columbia  Univer- 
sity, of  New  York  University,  of  Yale,  of  Harvard, 
and  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania;  of  the  New 
York  City,  the  Boston,  and  the  Maine  State  libraries; 
of  the  British  Museum  and  the  Bodleian;  to  the  offi- 
cers of  Merchant  Taylors'  School,  of  St.  Mary  Wool- 
church,  of  St.  Giles  Cripplegate,  and  of  St.  Giles  in 
the  Fields;  to  the  Oxford  University  Press,  to  the 
Misses  Stokes  and  Cox,  record  agents,  to  Mr.  Arthur 
P.  Monger,  photographer,  and  to  The  De  Vinne 
Press:  to  all  of  these  I  return  grateful  thanks. 

Nor  must  I  close  without  a  word  of  hearty  con- 
gratulation to  my  friend  Dr.  Robert  Stanley  Forsythe 
of  Adelbert  College,  upon  the  appearance  of  his 
study,  The  Relations  of  Shirley's  Plays  to  the  Eliza- 
bethan Drama.  Although  his  conclusions  upon  cer- 
tain questions  of  Shirleian  chronology  are  somewhat 
more  conservative  than  I  could  wish,  I  account  his 
book*  not  merely  a  most  scholarly  addition  to  our 
knowledge  of  the  plays  of  Shirley,  but  also  a  notable 
contribution  to  the  history  of  dramatic  art. 

A.  H.  N. 
New  York  University, 
March  16,  1915. 


CONTENTS 


Part  I:    THE  LIFE  OF  SHIRLEY 

Chapter  I.  Shirley's  Predramatic  Period.  1596- 
1625. 

Shirley's  relation  to  his  times,  3. — His  position  as  shown  by  his  rec- 
ord for  a  single  year,  1633,  4. — His  position  as  shown  by  his  record 
as  a  whole,  5. — The  threefold  purpose  of  the  present  study:  to 
determine  the  chronology  of  his  life,  the  course  of  his  development 
as  a  dramatist,  and  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  his  dramatic 
works,  5. — The  status  of  Shirleian  scholarship,  6. — The  five  periods 
of  his  life,  7. — His  parentage,  8. — First  hypothesis,  8. — Second 
hypothesis,  11. — Third  hypothesis,  14. — Probable  solution:  "James 
the  sonne  of  James  Sharlie,"  baptized  September  7,  1596,  in  St. 
Mary  Woolchurch,  15. — His  record  at  Merchant  Taylors'  School, 
20. — His  university  career,  21. — Was  he  a  student  at  St.  John's 
College,  Oxford?  22. — Was  he  later  a  student  at  Katherine  Hall, 
Cambridge?  25. — Did  he  ever  take  degrees?  30. — Conclusions,  31. 
— Life  at  St.  Albans,  31. — Chapter  summary,  33. 

Chapter  II.    Shirley's  First  Dramatic  Period. 
1625-1632. 

Plan  of  the  chapter,  35. — The  date  of  his  arrival  in  London,  35. — 
The  birth  of  his  first  son,  Mathias,  37. — Licensing  of  Love  Tricks, 
with  Complements,  The  Maid's  Revenge,  and  The  Brothers,  and 
the  presentation  of  The  Wedding,  38. — The  office-book  of  Sir 
Henry  Herbert,  Master  of  the  Revels,  our  ultimate  source  of  in- 
formation, 39. — Question  as  to  the  date  of  The  Wedding,  40. — 
Licensing  of  The  Witty  Fair  One  and  The  Grateful  Servant,  41. — 
Publication  of  The  Wedding,  41. — Of  The  Grateful  Servant,  42. 
— Licensing  of  The  Traitor,  The  Duke,  and  Love's  Cruelty,  43. — 
Publication  of  Love  Tricks  as  The  School  of  Complement,  44. — 
Licensing  of  The  Changes,  Hyde  Park,  and  The  Ball,  44. — Publica- 


CONTENTS 

tion  of  Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  45.— Herbert  censors  The 
Ball,  45.—  The  Brothers  of  1626  is  not  the  play  of  that  title  that 
was  published  in  1652,  46.— For  the  play  published  as  The  Poli- 
tician is  not,  as  some  would  assume,  the  play  licensed  as  The  Po- 
litique Father,  47.— And  with  this  Politique  Father  must  we 
identify  The  Brothers  of  1652,  not  with  The  Brothers  of  1626,  54. 
—Yet  The  Brothers  of  1626  is  probably  not  to  be  identified  with 
Dicke  of  Devonshire,  but  is  rather  to  be  accounted  lost,  62.— Chap- 
ter summary,  68. 

Chapter  III.    Shirley's  Second  Dramatic  Pe- 
riod.   1 63  2- 1 63  6. 

Probable  date  of  the  production  of  The  Arcadia,  70. — Licensing  of 
The  Bewties  {The  Bird  in  a  Cage),  The  Young  Admiral,  and  The 
Gamester,  72.— Herbert  commends  The  Young  Admiral,  73.— And 
The  Gamester,  74.— Publication  of  The  Wedding  (second  edition), 
A  Contention  for  Honor  and  Riches,  The  Witty  Fair  One,  and  The 
Bird  in  a  Cage,  74.— Shirley's  attack  on  Prynne,  76.— The  produc- 
tion of  The  Triumph  of  Peace,  79.— The  licensing  of  The  Example 
and  The  Opportunity,  81.— The  publication  of  The  Triumph  of 
Peace,  81.— The  publication  of  The  Traitor,  81.— The  licensing  of 
The  Coronation,  Chabot,  and  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  82.— Extract 
from  the  diary  of  Sir  Humphrey  Mildmay,  82.—  The  Coronation 
falsely  ascribed  to  Fletcher,  82.— Chabot  primarily  the  work  of 
Chapman,  83. — And,  therefore,  not  to  be  discussed  in  our  critical 
estimate  of  Shirley,  89.— The  licensing  of  The  Duke's  Mistress, 
and  its  presentation  at  court,  89.— Chapter  summary,  90. 

Chapter  IV.    Shirley's  Third  Dramatic  Period. 
1 636-1 642. 

Date  of  Shirley's  removal  from  London  to  Dublin,  91. — The  occa- 
sion probably  the  plague  in  London,  92. — Work  for  Ogilby's  theater 
in  Werburgh  Street,  Dublin,  93.— Publication  of  The  Lady  of 
Pleasure,  Hyde  Park,  and  The  Young  Admiral,  94.— Of  The  Ex- 
ample and  The  Gamester,  95. — New  editions  of  Love  Tricks  and 
The  Grateful  Servant,  96.— Publication  of  The  Royal  Master,  97. 
—Of  The  Duke's  Mistress,  98.— London  presentation  of  The 
Royal  Master,  99.— Publication  of  The  Ball,  Chabot,  and  The 
Maid's  Revenge,  100.— Plays  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register, 
101  —The  relation  of  The  Humorous  Courtier  to  The  Duke  and 
The  Conceited  Duke,  102.— Licensing  of  The  Gentleman  of  Venice, 
103.— The  Tragedy  of  St.  Albons  and  Looke  to  the  Ladie  entered 


COXTEXTS 

S.  R..  104. — St.  Patrick  for  Ireland  and  The  Constant  Maid  en- 
tered S.  R.,  104. — Publication  of  The  Humorous  Courtier,  L 
Cruelty,  The  Arcadia,  The  Opportunity,  and  The  Coronation,  105. 
— Of  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland  and  The  Constant  Maid,  106. — 
Licensing  of  The  Doubtful  Heir  and  The  Imposture,  107. — Shir- 
ley's removal  from  Dublin  to  London,  107. — Licensing  of  The  Poli- 
tique Father  and  The  Cardinal,  107. — The  licensing  of  The  Sisters 
and  the  composition  of  The  Court  Secret,  10S.  —  Six  problems  to  be 
discussed.  109. —  (1)  The  date  of  the  Dublin  presentation  of  The 
Royal  Master,  109. —  (2)  Did  Shirley  visit  London  in  1037?  114. — 
(3)  Did  he  visit  London  in  1639?  115. —  (4)  On  what  date  did 
Shirley  end  his  Dublin  residence?  117. —  (5)  What  does  Shirley 
mean  by  his  loss  of  preferment?  119. —  (6)  Why  did  Shirley  cease 
to  write  for  the  Queen's  men  and  give  his  later  plays  to  the  King's 
men?  122. — An  analysis  of  the  arguments  of  Fleay  and  Xissen,  124. 
—  Right  of  publication,  125. — The  identity  of  the  dramatic  com- 
panies involved,  126. — Shirley's  alleged  grievance  against  the 
Queen's  men  evidently  the  invention  of  his  biographers,  129. — A 
more  obvious  reason  for  Shirley's  change.  130. — Chapter  summary. 
131. — The  prologue  to  his  last  acted  comedy.  The  Sisters,  133. — 
The  Civil  War  and  the  closing  of  the  theaters.  135. 


Chapter  V.     Shirley's   Post-dramatic   Period. 
1642-1666. 

Shirley's  military  service  under  Xewcastle,  136. — He  resumes 
school-teaching.  137. — Publication  of  his  Poems.  13S. — Portrait  by 
Marshall.  139. — Postscript  to  the  Reader,  139. — Address  "To  the 
Reader"  prefixed  to  the  folio  of  the  plays  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher.  140. — Publication  of  Via  ad  Latinam  Linguam  Compla- 
nata.  141. — Publication  of  Six  New  Playes.  142. — "Catalogue  of 
the  Authors  Poems  Already  Printed,"  144. — Publication  of  Cupid 
and  Death.  145. — Of  The  Politician  and  The  Gentleman  of  J  t  m 
146. — Of  The  Rudiments  of  Grammar  and  Manductio.  14S. — Of 
Honoria  and  Mammon  and  The  Contention  of  Ajax  and  Ulysses. 
148. — "The  glories  of  our  blood  and  state,"  149. — Portrait  by 
Phenik  and  Gaywood,  130. — The  Bodleian  portrait.  151. — Publica- 
tions 1657— 1667,  l52- — Collaboration  with  Xewcastle  and  drudgery 
for  Ogilby,  153. — Shirleian  revivals  under  the  Restoration,  as  re- 
corded by  Herbert,  Pepys,  and  Downes,  153. — Shirley's  will,  1000. 
158. — Chapter  summary,  161. — Shirley's  death.  101. —  His  burial, 
162. 


on 


CONTENTS 

Part  II:  THE  PLAYS  OF  SHIRLEY 

CHRONOLOGY  OF  PLAYS,  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD, 

1625-1632,  166. 

Chapter  VI.  The  First  Dramatic  Period  Begun. 

From  Love  Tricks  to  The  Wedding. 

The  character  of  the  dramatic  works  of  Shirley,  and  the  evolution 
of  Shirley  as  a  dramatist,  167.— The  character  of  his  realistic 
plays,  168.— The  character  of  his  romantic  plays,  168.— His  first 
period  predominantly  realistic,  169.— Love  Tricks  a  mixture  of  the 
two,  170.— Its  plot,  170.— Its  comic  episodes,  especially  the  School 
of  Complement,  172.— Its  use  of  old  material,  173.— An  acceptable 
rival  for  the  latest  Broadway  "show,"  174.—  The  Maid's  Revenge, 
174.— Its  plot,  174.— "A  tragedy  of  much  promise,"  176.—  The 
Wedding,  a  comedy  of  manners,  177.— Its  main  plot,  177.— Its  sub- 
plot, 179.— Its  use  of  old  material,  180.— Its  lack  of  unity,  181.— 
Chapter  summary:  the  three  plays  considered  indicate  the  scope  of 
Shirley's  work,  romantic  and  realistic,  182. 

Chapter  VII.  The  First  Dramatic  Period  Con- 
tinued. The  Witty  Fair  One  and  The  Grateful 
Servant. 

Shirley's  increasing  power  as  a  dramatist,  183.—  The  Witty  Fair 
One,  a  comedy  of  London  life  and  manners,  184.— Its  major  plot, 
184.— Its  minor  plot,  186.— Two  faults  of  structure,  187.— Its 
characters:  Sir  Nicholas  Treadle,  188.— Brains,  190.— Dramati- 
cally excellent,  the  play  is  morally  repulsive,  190.—  The  Grateful 
Servant,  a  romantic  comedy,  with  a  realistic  underplot,  191.— The 
major  plot,  191.— The  minor  plot,  193.— The  scenes  highly  effec- 
tive, 194.— The  characterization,  especially  that  of  Jacomo,  195.— 
Chapter  summary:  Shirley's  increasing  power,  197. 

Chapter  VIII.  The  First  Dramatic  Period  Con- 
tinued.   The  Traitor. 

The  Traitor,  a  romantic  tragedy,  198.— Its  plot,  198.— Falls  short 
of  highest  effectiveness  only  because  the  struggle  is  external  rather 
than  internal,  201.— The  characters,  202.— Lorenzo,  202.— Sciar- 
rha,  204.— The  Duke,  207.— Amidea,  207.— The  characterization 
highly  praiseworthy,  210.— The  comic  relief:  Depazzi,  211.— The 
verse,  212.— Swinburne's  appreciation,  216.— Chapter  summary: 
1  he  Traitor  a  memorable  achievement,  219. 


CONTENTS 

Chapter  IX.  The  First  Dramatic  Period  Con- 
cluded. From  The  Humorous  Courtier  to  The 
Ball. 

The  five  plays  still  to  be  considered  in  this  period  all  realistic,  221. 
—  The  Humorous  Courtier,  a  new  version  of  Every  Man  out  of  his 
Humour,  222. — The  plot,  222. — More  acceptable  in  Shirley's  day 
than  in  ours,  223. — Love's  Cruelty,  a  realistic  tragedy,  224. — The 
plot,  224. — Notable  for  the  psychology  of  the  Clariana-Hippolito 
scenes,  for  the  use  of  realism  in  tragedy,  for  unflinching  truth,  and 
for  severe  morality,  225. — Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  a  comedy 
of  London  life  and  manners,  226. — Its  plot,  226. — Its  characters  of 
humor,  227. — Hyde  Park,  a  realistic  picture  of  London  life  and 
manners,  227. — Its  threefold  plot,  227. — Its  improved  characteriza- 
tion, 229. — Significant  chiefly  as  a  forward  step  in  Shirley's  mastery 
of  character  and  setting,  229. — The  Ball,  a  realistic  picture  of  the 
life  and  manners  of  the  court,  230. — Herbert's  protest,  230. — Shir- 
ley's retort  in  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  231. — Swinburne's  ill-founded 
criticism,  232. — The  main  plot,  233. — The  second  plot,  235. — Esti- 
mate of  the  play,  235. — Summary,  first  dramatic  period:  primarily 
realistic,  237. 

CHRONOLOGY  OF  PLAYS,  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD, 

1632-1636,  240. 

Chapter  X.  The  Second  Dramatic  Period  Be- 
gun.   From  The  Arcadia  to  The  Young  Admiral. 

Shirley's  second  period  predominantly  romantic,  241. —  The  Arcadia, 
a  Fletcherian  dramatic  romance,  may  be  taken  as  a  turning-point 
in  the  career  of  Shirley,  242. — The  plot,  243. — Typical  dramatic 
romance,  244. —  The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  Fletcherian  dramatic  romance 
turned  into  extravaganza,  245. — Its  plot,  245. — The  Young  Ad- 
miral, a  romantic  tragicomedy,  247. — Its  plot,  247. — The  nature  of 
the  struggle,  249. — The  characterization,  250. — The  comic  mate- 
rial, 250. — The  verse,  250. — Chapter  summary:  Shirley's  increasing 
idealism,  252. 

Chapter  XL  The  Second  Dramatic  Period  Con- 
tinued.   The  Gamester  and  The  Example. 

Shirley's  temporary  return  to  realism,  253. — His  new  realism  tem- 
pered by  idealism,  253. —  The  Gamester,  a  comedy  of  London  life 
and  manners,  254. — Its  main  plot  highly  dramatic,  254. — The  fig- 
ures in  the  second  plot,  255. — The  third  plot,  a  romantic  love-story, 


CONTENTS 

256.— The  characterization,  257.— The  king's  opinion,  258.—  The 
Example,  a  comedy  of  London  life  and  manners,  258.— Its  subplots, 
and  the  humor-characters  involved,  258. — Its  main  plot,  259.— 
Swinburne's  extravagant  praise,  260.— Chapter  summary,  261. 

Chapter  XII.     The  Second  Dramatic  Period 

CONTINUED.  The  Opportunity  and  The  Corona- 
tion. 

The  Opportunity,  a  charming  romantic  comedy,  263.— Its  source, 
El  Castigo  del  Penseque  by  Tirso  de  Molina,  263.— Its  plot,  264.— 
Its  delectability,  267.— Stiefel's  comparison  of  The  Opportunity 
with  its  source,  268.— The  Coronation,  a  Fletcherian  dramatic 
romance,  270.— Its  plot,  271.— Its  characterization,  272.— Its  effec- 
tive situations,  273.— Chapter  summary  and  summary  of  the  second 
dramatic  period  to  this  point:  five  romantic  plays  as  compared  with 
two  that  are  realistic,  274. 

Chapter  XIII.    The  Second  Dramatic  Period 

CONCLUDED.  The  Lady  of  Pleasure  and  The 
Duke's  Mistress. 

The  two  plays  to  be  considered  are  typical  of  the  work  of  Shirley  in 
the  realistic  and  romantic  schools  respectively,  276.—  The  Lady  of 
Pleasure,  a  brilliant,  satiric  comedy  of  manners,  276.— Its  plot,  277. 
—  Its  characters,  278.— The  characterization,  279.— An  approach 
to  Restoration  comedy,  279.—  The  Duke's  Mistress,  a  romantic 
tragicomedy,  280.— Its  plot,  281.— Typical  in  the  method  of  its  ex- 
position, 284.— Typical  in  its  well-knit  plot,  285.— Typical  in  its 
choice  of  scenes,  286.— Summary,  second  dramatic  period:  Shirley 
predominantly  romantic,  287. 

CHRONOLOGY  OF  PLAYS,  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD, 

1 636-1 642,  290. 

Chapter  XIV.   The  Third  Dramatic  Period  Be- 
gun.   The  Royal  Master. 

Order  of  presentation,  291.— The  third  period  overwhelmingly 
romantic,  292.—  The  Royal  Master,  a  romantic  comedy,  293.— The 
first  action,  293.— The  second  action,  296.— The  characterization: 
Domitilla,  299.— Bombo,  300.— The  sprightly  dialogue,  300.— 
Chapter  summary,  303.— Schipper's  impressions,  303,  note. 


CONTENTS 

Chapter  XV.  The  Third  Dramatic  Period  Con- 
tinued. From  The  Gentleman  of  Venice  to  The 
Constant  Maid. 

Thorndike's  comment  on  the  romantic  plays  of  Shirley,  304. —  The 
Gentleman  of  Venice,  a  romantic  comedy  with  a  realistic  under- 
plot, 305. — The  main  plot,  305. — The  repulsive  underplot,  306. — 
Estimate,  306. —  The  Politician,  a  somber  romantic  tragedy,  307. — 
Its  plot,  307. — The  power  of  its  scenes,  309. — Its  tragic  effect,  311. 
— St.  Patrick  for  Ireland,  a  romantic  medley,  313. —  The  Constant 
Maid,  a  reversion  to  Shirley's  early  comedies  of  London  life  and 
manners,  314. — Its  highly  complicated  major  plot,  314. — Surprise 
upon  surprise,  317. — The  minor  plot,  318. — Weak  in  unity  and  in 
character-delineation,  318. — Chapter  summary,  319. 

Chapter  XVI.  The  Third  Dramatic  Period  Con- 
tinued. From  The  Doubtful  Heir  to  The  Broth- 
ers of  1652. 

The  six  remaining  plays  of  Shirley  are  among  his  best,  320. —  The 
Doubtful  Heir,  a  capital  bit  of  Fletcherian  romance,  swift,  exciting, 
poetic,  321. — Its  highly  romantic  plot,  321. — Notable  for  its  im- 
provement upon  old  material  and  for  its  dramatic  economy,  324. — 
Typical  Fletcherian  romance  in  its  slightness  of  characterization, 
326. — And  in  the  character  of  its  poetry:  sweetness  rather  than 
strength,  327. —  The  Imposture,  a  comedy  of  romantic  intrigue,  330. 
—  Its  plot,  330. — Its  epilogue,  335. —  The  Politique  Father,  i.e., 
The  Brothers  of  1652,  the  last  of  Shirley's  comedies  of  manners, 
336. — Its  major  plot,  336. — Its  minor  characters  and  actions,  338. — 
Its  verse,  339. — Chapter  summary,  342. 

Chapter  XVII.  The  Third  Dramatic  Period 
Continued.    The  Cardinal. 

The  Cardinal,  a  romantic  tragedy,  344. — Its  effective  plot,  344. — 
Its  powerful  scenes,  346. — Its  notable  characters,  347. — The 
Duchess  Rosaura,  347. — Columbo,  351. — Hernando,  353. — The 
Cardinal,  356. — Chapter  summary:  a  notable  romantic  tragedy,  360. 

Chapter  XVIII.    The  Third  Dramatic  Period 

CONCLUDED.     The  Sisters  and  The  Court  Secret. 

The  Sisters,  a  gay  mixture  of  romantic  comedy  and  farce,  362. — Its 
structural  unity,  362. — The  plot,  363. — The  characterization,  365. 


CONTENTS 

— Frapolo,  365.— Piperollo,  369.— Excellent  fooling,  371. — The 
Court  Secret,  a  dramatic  romance,  372. — Its  plot,  built  upon  a 
double  imposture,  372.— Well  knit,  377.— A  combination  of  sus- 
pense and  of  surprise,  378.— The  characterization  not  notable,  378. 
— Chapter  summary,  379.— Summary,  third  dramatic  period :  Shir- 
ley has  become  thoroughly  romantic,  380. 

Chapter  XIX.   Conclusion. 

The  threefold  purpose  of  this  study,  382.— The  limitation  of  the 
field,  382.— (I)  Chronology,  384.— Verification  of  data,  384.— 
Elimination  of  imaginative  touches,  384.— Reexamination  of  the 
constructive  reasoning  of  previous  biographers,  384.— The  result:  a 
chronology  typographically  more  accurate  and  logically  more  cir- 
cumspect than  any  previously  proposed,  385.— Shirley's  private  life, 
385-— The  three  hypotheses  concerning  Shirley's  parentage  dis- 
proved, 385.— His  alleged  quarrel  with  the  Queen's  men  proved 
mythical,  385.— Our  certain  knowledge  limited  to  the  record  of  his 
christening,  in  the  register  of  St.  Mary  Woolchurch;  of  his  school- 
ing, in  the  probation  register  of  Merchant  Taylors'  School ;  of  the 
christening  of  his  son  Mathias,  in  the  register  of  St.  Giles  Cripple- 
gate;  of  his  will,  preserved  at  Somerset  House;  and  of  his  burial, 
recorded  in  the  register  of  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  385-386.— Shir- 
ley's life  as  dramatist,  386.— Data  available  in  Herbert's  office- 
book,  the  Stationers'  Register,  title-pages,  and  the  lists  appended  to 
The  Maid's  Revenge  and  The  Cardinal,  386.— The  identity  of  The 
Politique  Father  with  The  Brothers  of  1652,  established  by  Nissen's 
argument  and  by  Moseley's  catalogue,  387.— Our  chronology, 
therefore,  practically  complete.— (II)  The  Course  of  Shirley's 
Development  as  a  Dramatist,  387.— Shirley  began  his  career  as  a 
follower  of  the  realistic  school  of  Jonson  and  of  Fletcher,  388.— In 
his  second  period,  the  proportion  of  realistic  to  romantic  plays  is 
reversed,  388.— In  his  final  period,  his  work  is  overwhelmingly 
romantic,  389.— Tabular  statement,  390.— In  short,  from  Jonsonian 
and  Fletcherian  comedy  of  manners  and  of  humors,  Shirley  passed 
to  Fletcherian  and  Shaksperean  romantic  comedy,  dramatic  ro- 
mance, and  romantic  tragedy,  391.— (Ill)  The  Characteristics 
of  Shirley's  Plays,  391.— Shirley's  realistic  plays,  391.— His  pic- 
tures of  the  life  of  court  and  town,  391.— His  characters  of  humor, 
392.— Shirley's  romantic  plays,  393.— His  dramatic  romances,  393. 
—  His  romantic  comedies,  394. — His  romantic  tragedies,  395.— 
Summary,  396.— Quotation  from  Edward  Phillips,  397. 


[xiv] 


CONTENTS 

ANNOTATED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 

PART  I.     The  Published  Works  of  James  Shirley,  Chrono- 
logically Arranged,  401. 

PART   II.     Works    Containing    References   to    Shirley,    Ar- 
ranged Alphabetically  by  Authors,  422. 


[>] 


LIST   OF   ILLUSTRATIONS 


James  Shirley,  Dramatist,  from  the  por- 
trait in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford       .  Frontispiece 

Record  of  the  Baptism  of  "James  the  sonne  of 
James  Sharlie,"  from  the  Register  of  St. 
Mary  Woolchurch,  September  7,  1596  .      .     Facing  page     17 

Record  of  James  Shirley  in  the  Fifth  Form  of 
Merchant  Taylors'  School,  from  the  Reg- 
ister of  the  School's  Probation,  September 
11,    1 610 Facing  page     21 

James  Shirley,  from  the  engraving  by  W. 

Marshall,  1646 Facing  page   139 

James  Shirley,  G.  Phenik  pinx:  R.  Gaywood 

fecit  1658 Facing  page   151 

Record  of  the  Burial  of  "Mr.  James  Sherley" 
and  of  "Mris.  Frances  Sherley  his  wife," 
from  the  Register  of  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields, 
October  29,  1666 Facing  page  162 


PART  I 
THE  LIFE  OF  SHIRLEY 


CHAPTER  I 
SHIRLEY'S  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

1596-1625 

AMONG  the  dramatists  of  the  reign  of  Charles 
/  %  the  First,  James  Shirley  stands  preeminent: 
1  m  the  last  of  the  Elizabethans,  the  prophet  of 
the  Restoration.  Born  in  the  spacious  times  of  great 
Elizabeth,  in  the  very  year  in  which  Raleigh  and 
Lord  Howard  of  Effingham  took  and  sacked  Cadiz; 
school-boy,  university  man,  and  teacher  in  the  reign 
of  James  the  First;  favorite  dramatist  of  the  court  of 
Charles,  friend  of  the  king  and  champion  of  the 
queen;  follower  of  the  Duke  of  Newcastle  in  the 
Civil  War;  and  then,  through  the  Protectorate  and 
the  first  six  years  of  the  reign  of  Charles  the  Second, 
schoolmaster  again  and  miscellaneous  writer:  James 
Shirley,  in  the  course  of  three  score  years  and  ten, 
embodied  in  himself  as  man  and  dramatist  something 
of  the  chivalric  spirit  of  the  Elizabethans,  something 
of  the  impetuous  loyalty  of  the  Cavaliers,  some- 
thing of  the  fine  patience  of  the  great  poet  of  the 
Puritans,  and  something  of  that  licentiousness  of 
thought  and  speech  characteristic  of  the  entire  seven- 

C33 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

teenth  century  though  more  often  ascribed  merely  to 
the  courtiers  and  dramatists  of  the  Restoration. 

As  a  lover  of  Shakspere,  as  a  student  of  Lope  de 
Vega,  as  a  reviser  of  plays  by  Chapman  and  by 
Fletcher,  as  an  avowed  disciple  of  Ben  Jonson,  Shir- 
ley brought  to  his  profession  a  taste  genuinely  catho- 
lic and  a  technique  highly  developed.  What  part  he 
played  in  the  dramatic  activities  of  his  time,  we  may 
learn  by  reading  his  record  for  a  single  twelvemonth. 
In  the  spring  of  1633,  when  William  Prynne,  the 
Puritan  fanatic,  virulently  assailed  the  queen  and  her 
ladies  for  participating  in  a  play  at  court,  Shirley,  as 
"Servant  to  her  Majesty,"  offered  the  retort  discour- 
teous in  his  ironical  dedication  to  The  Bird  in  a  Cage. 
In  the  autumn  of  that  year,  Shirley  was  the  author  of 
the  play  presented  in  honor  of  the  king's  birthday— 
the  romantic  tragicomedy,  The  Young  Admiral.  In 
the  same  year,  when  Charles  desired  the  dramatiza- 
tion of  a  favorite  story,  he,  through  his  Master  of  the 
Revels,  gave  the  plot  to  Shirley.  On  this  plot,  Shirley 
wrote  The  Gamester,  which  was  acted  at  court  on 
February  6,  1633/4.  "The  King,"  wrote  Sir  Henry 
Herbert,  "sayd  it  was  the  best  play  he  had  seen  for 
seven  years."  In  that  same  February  of  1633/4,  seven 
months  before  the  youthful  Milton  produced  his 
masque  of  Comtts  for  the  Earl  of  Bridgewater,  Shir- 
ley   provided    another    masque,    The    Triumph    of 

CO 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Peace,  for  the  Inns  of  Court  to  present  before  the 
king.  For  Milton's  masque,  Lawes  composed  the 
music,  and  Inigo  Jones  designed  the  scenery.  For 
Shirley's  masque,  the  same  composer  and  artist  were 
engaged;  and  upon  its  presentation,  the  Inns  of  Court 
expended  twenty  thousand  pounds. 

Such  was  Shirley's  record  for  a  single  year:  look 
now  at  his  achievement  as  a  whole.  In  the  eighteen 
years  of  his  career  as  dramatist,  Shirley  produced 
thirty-one  plays  that  have  survived.  Of  these,  twelve 
are  pictures  of  London  life  and  manners — a  connect- 
ing link  between  the  plays  of  Jonson  and  those  of 
Wycherley  and  Congreve.  One,  his  earliest,  is  a 
mixture  of  the  realistic  and  the  romantic  styles.  The 
other  eighteen  are  romantic  plays— dramatic  ro- 
mance, romantic  comedy,  and  romantic  tragedy- 
plays  that  recall  the  work  of  Fletcher,  of  Webster, 
and  of  Shakspere,  and  that  lead  onward  to  the  trage- 
dies and  heroic  plays  of  Dryden  and  of  Otway.  Well 
might  Milton's  nephew,  Edward  Phillips,  writing 
nine  years  after  Shirley's  death,  declare  that,  in  dra- 
matic poesy,  "he  hath  written  both  very  much,  and 
for  the  most  part  with  that  felicity  that  by  some  he 
is  accounted  little  inferior  to  Fletcher  himself." 
Well  might  he  call  Shirley  "a  just  pretender  to  more 
than  the  meanest  place  among  English  poets." 

In  the  present  study  of  the  life  and  works  of  Shir- 

[5: 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ley,  the  endeavor  is  threefold:  first,  to  examine  the 
little  that  we  know  of  Shirley's  life,  to  determine, 
fact  by  fact,  the  value  of  the  evidence,  and,  on  a  basis 
of  this  critical  examination,  to  construct  a  chronology 
more  accurate  than  has  been  hitherto  available;  sec- 
ond, on  a  basis  of  this  revised  chronology,  to  restudy 
the  dramatic  works  of  Shirley,  in  order  to  determine, 
if  possible,  the  course  of  his  development  as  a  dram- 
atist; and,  third,  from  this  same  examination  of  the 
plays,  to  determine  the  distinctive  characteristics  of 
his  dramatic  works.  To  the  second  and  third  of  these 
endeavors  will  be  devoted  the  fourteen  chapters  of 
Part  II ;  to  the  first,  the  five  chapters  of  Part  I. 

Concerning  the  events  of  Shirley's  life,  which  con- 
stitute our  subject  in  Part  I,  the  principal  accounts 
are  those  of  Anthony  a  Wood  in  his  Athence  Oxonien- 
ses,  1 691-2,  of  Dyce  in  1833,  and,  more  recently,  of 
Fleay,  of  Ward,  and  of  Nissen.  Gosse,  Swinburne, 
Schelling,  Neilson,  and  Schipper  have  likewise  writ- 
ten upon  Shirley;  but  their  contributions  have  been 
primarily  critical  rather  than  biographical.  Of  the 
five  accounts  of  Shirley's  life,  that  by  Wood  is  char- 
acterized by  grave  omissions,  by  assertions  based 
seemingly  on  hearsay  and  now  incapable  of  verifica- 
tion, and  by  at  least  one  conspicuous  mistake — the  age 
of  the  dramatist  at  death;  yet  this  record  is,  on  many 
points,  our  sole  "authority,"  and  has  been  all  but  uni- 

£6] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

versally  accepted.  The  account  by  Dyce  is  more 
scholarly  and  more  complete,  and  yet  leaves  much  to 
be  desired.  Of  the  articles  by  Fleay,  Ward,  and  Nis- 
sen,  each  has  its  excellences,  and  each  embodies,  in 
one  department  or  another,  the  results  of  laborious 
research.  Each,  however,  if  I  may  venture  an  opin- 
ion, has  here  and  there  been  over-positive  on  matters 
not  yet  certain ;  each  has  contributed  something  to  the 
correction  of  its  predecessors;  and  yet  even  the  latest, 
that  of  Nissen,  not  only  accepts  the  unsupported  state- 
ments of  Wood  without  a  scruple  but  even  cites  that 
delightfully  imaginative  paraphrase,  Shiels's  Cib- 
ber's  Lives  of  the  Poets,  1753,  as  an  authority  worthy 
of  credence  with  the  best.  My  task,  therefore,  in 
preparing  a  new  account  of  Shirley's  life,  is  not  to 
add  new  facts,  but  rather  to  reexamine  the  evidence, 
and  to  discriminate  between  what  has  been  proved 
and  what  has  not.  I  shall  not  everywhere  reject  the 
accepted  facts  of  Shirley's  life  merely  because  the 
evidence  for  their  truth  is  lacking;  but  I  shall  at  least 
give  warning  in  such  cases  that  I  base  my  statement 
upon  tradition,  and  on  nothing  more. 

My  discussion  of  the  life— as  distinguished  from 
the  works— of  Shirley  may  be  best  presented  under 
five  heads ;  and  to  each  I  shall  devote  a  chapter.  The 
first  chapter,  which  I  have  entitled  Shirley's  Pre- 
dramatic  Period,  will  recount  the  events  of  his  career 

c  7  3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

from  his  birth  in  1596  to  the  licensing  of  his  first  play 
in  1625;  the  second,  Shirley's  First  Dramatic  Period, 
his  career  thence  to  the  licensing  of  The  Ball,  No- 
vember 16,  1632;  the  third,  Shirley's  Second  Dra- 
matic Period,  from  the  supposed  date  of  the  acting 
of  his  Arcadia,  November  19,  1632,  to  his  departure 
for  Ireland  in  the  spring  of  1635/6;  the  fourth, 
thence  to  the  closing  of  the  theaters  in  1642,  his  Third 
Dramatic  Period;  and  the  fifth  chapter,  Shirley's 
Post-dramatic  Period,  from  the  closing  of  the  the- 
aters to  his  death  in  1666.  The  basis  of  my  division 
into  periods  will  be  more  evident  when,  in  Part  II, 
we  examine  the  course  of  Shirley's  development  as  a 
dramatist. 

Concerning  the  parentage  of  James  Shirley,  pre- 
vious biographers  have  offered  nothing  that  bears 
examination.  Indeed,  of  the  three  hypotheses  they 
have  advanced,  each  can  be  all  but  conclusively  re- 
futed. The  first  of  these— that  our  dramatist  was  of 
the  Warwickshire  family  of  the  same  name— was  one 
of  two  proposed  by  Anthony  a  Wood:  "James  Shir- 
ley," he  says,  "the  most  noted  drammatick  Poet  of  his 
time,  .  .  .  was  descended  from  the  Shirleys  of  Sussex 
or  Warwickshire,  as  by  his  Arms  (if  he  had  right 
to  them)  painted  over  his  picture  hanging  in  the 
School-gallery  at  Oxon,  appears."1    The  arms  in  the 

1  Wood,  1691-1692,  11,  260;  cf.  1817,  in,  737. 

[8] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Oxford  portrait  are  indeed  the  arms  of  the  Shirleys 
of  Warwickshire :  "Paly  of  six  or  and  azure,  a  quarter 
ermine."2  To  be  more  explicit,  they  are  the  arms 
borne,  in  Shirley's  time,  by  Sir  George  Shirley,  Bart., 
lord  of  Eatington  (1559-1622);  by  his  son,  Sir 
Henry  Shirley,  Bart.,  lord  of  Eatington  ( 1588— 
1633/4)  1  and  then,  successively,  by  the  two  sons  of 
Sir  Henry:  Sir  Charles  Shirley,  Bart.  (1623-1646), 
and  Sir  Robert  Shirley,  Bart.  ( 1629-1656).3  Two 
circumstances,  moreover,  might  support  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  dramatist  was  related  to  these  Shirleys 
of  Eatington,  or  Etindon,  in  County  Warwick.  In 
1632,  he  dedicated  his  comedy,  Changes,  or  Love  in 
a  Maze,  to  "the  right  honorable  the  Lady  Dorothy 
Shirley,"  wife  of  Sir  Henry  Shirley,  Bart.4  In  1639, 
Thomas  Bancroft  included  four  doggerel  lines  to  one 
James  Shirley,  presumably  our  dramatist,  in  the  Two 


-,. 


7c 


2  E.  jP.  Shirley,  Noble  and  Gentle  Men  of  England,  pp.  255,  254; 
cf.  E.  P.  Shirley,  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1841,  pp.  13,  78,  102,  etc. 

3  Ibid.,  p.  48. 

4  Gifford,  in  the  Gifford  and  Dyce  edition  of  the  works  of  Shirley, 
II,  271,  note,  appears  to  be  incorrect  in  several  of  his  statements  con- 
cerning Lady  Dorothy  Shirley  and  her  husband.  According  to  E.  P. 
Shirley,  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1841,  p.  48,  the  Lady  Dorothy  Dev- 
ereux,  second  daughter  of  Robert,  second  earl  of  Essex,  married  not 
Sir  Robert  Shirley,  Bart.,  as  Gifford  says,  but  Sir  Henry  Shirley,  Bart. 
The  date  of  the  wedding  was  not  161 5,  as  Gifford  says,  but  was 
August  1,  1616.  Sir  Robert  Shirley,  born  1629,  was  not  her  husband 
but  her  son.  Moreover,  she  was  not  "probably  a  widow  when  these 
verses  were  addressed  to  her"  in  1632;  for  Sir  Robert  did  not  die  in 
February,  1632,  as  Gifford  asserts,  but  on  February  8,  1633/4. 

C9] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Bookes  of  Epigrammes  that  he  dedicated  to  Sir 
Henry's  successor,  Sir  Charles  Shirley,  Bart.  Neither 
these  dedications,  however,  nor  the  presence  of  a 
namesake's  arms  in  the  Bodleian  portrait,  can  estab- 
lish James  Shirley's  claim  to  be  included  among  the 
Warwick  Shirleys.  Even  Wood,  who  first  offered 
this  hypothesis,  qualified  it  with  the  words:  "his  Arms 
(if  he  had  right  to  them)";  and  the  worthy  Oxonian 
would  scarcely  have  expressed  this  doubt  without 
good  reason.  E.  P.  Shirley,  who  gave  much  time 
and  labor  to  establishing  the  pedigree  of  the  Shirley 
family,  "Lords  of  Nether  Etindon  in  the  County  of 
Warwick,"  found  no  place  in  the  family  tree  for 
James  Shirley  the  dramatist.  In  the  first  edition  of 
his  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1841,  E.  P.  Shirley  referred 
to  "the  poet,  who,  from  the  arms  which  he  assumed, 
is  supposed  to  have  sprung  from  some  younger 
branch  of  the  house  of  Eatington";5  but  in  his  en- 
larged edition,  1873,  he  changed  his  wording  to 
"perhaps  supposed  himself  to  have  sprung";6  and 
further  on  he  wrote:  "Of  James  Shirley  the  poet  .  .  . 
there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  he  belonged  to  the 
House  of  Ettington."7  So  thorough  were  the  re- 
searches of  E.  P.  Shirley,  that  we  should  account  his 
judgment  practically  conclusive. 

8  E.  P.  Shirley,  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1841,  p.  92. 
8  Ibid.,  1873,  p.  119. 
''Ibid.,  1873.  P-  339- 

[10] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

A  second  hypothesis,  that  James  Shirley  was  of  the 
Shirley  (or  Sherley)  family  of  Sussex,  is  no  more 
tenable  than  the  first,  and  yet  it  is  not  without  sup- 
porters. They  have  even  asserted  his  close  kinship 
to  Henry  Sherley,  author  of  The  Martyred  Soldier. 
As  early  as  1644,  a  news-letter  quoted  in  Tierney's 
Arundel8  referred  to  "Master  Henry  Sherley,  kins- 
man to  Mr.  James  Sherley  the  playwright,  and  who 
did  excell  him  in  that  faculty" ;  and  Wood,  in  169 1-2, 
remarked:  "I  find  one  Henry  Shirley,  gent,  author 
of  a  play  called  The  Martyr 'd  Soldier,  Lond. 
1638.  qu.  Which  Henry  I  take  to  be  brother  or  near 
kinsman  to  James."9  Fleay  inferred,  "from  the  fact 
that  Henry  Shirley  [who  was  murdered  in  1627] 
preceded  James  by  so  many  years,  that  he  was  his 
father  and  not  his  brother  as  has  been  generally  con- 
jectured."10 More  interesting  is  the  fact,  unnoted,  I 
believe,  by  previous  biographers,  that  in  the  engrav- 
ing of  James  Shirley  inscribed  "G.  Phenik  pinx:  R. 
Gaywood  fecit  1658,"  the  arms  are  differenced  with 
a  crescent— a  mark  of  cadency  which,  according  to 
Stemmata  Shirleiana,11  was  regularly  borne  by  the 
Sherleys  of  Wiston  in  Sussex,  Henry  Sherley's  fam- 

8  Tierney's  Arundel,  I,  67,  note  a.  See  also  Notes  and  Queries,  1st 
Ser.,  XII,  26-27,  Ju^y  J4>  1885  J  and  Hunter,  Chorus  Vatum  Anglica- 
norum,  III,  417-422. 

9  Wood,  1691-1692,  II,  262;  cf.  1817,  III,  741. 

10  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  414. 

11  E.  P.  Shirley,  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1 841,  pp.  1 79-224. 

C"3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ily.  If  this  engraving  be,  as  some  suppose,  a  modi- 
fication of  the  Bodleian  portrait,  the  presence  of  the 
crescent  may  be  indicative  either  of  growing  modesty 
in  the  aging  dramatist  or  of  greater  honesty  in  the 
engraver;  but  it  does  not  necessarily  imply  that  Shir- 
ley was  now  asserting  kinship  with  the  Sussex  Sher- 
leys.  The  crescent,  difference  of  the  second  son,12 
was  borne  by  the  Sherleys  of  Wiston  in  Sussex  be- 
cause they  were  descended  from  Ralph  Sherley  of 
Wiston,  Esq.  (ob.  1 5 10),  secon d  son  of  Ralph  Shirley 
of  Ettington,  Esq.;13  but  the  crescent  might  be  borne 
by  the  descendant  of  the  second  son  of  any  other  gen- 
eration. Nevertheless,  just  as  the  Bodleian  portrait 
gives  to  James  Shirley  the  arms  that  of  right  belonged 
to  Sir  Charles  Shirley,  Bart,  lord  of  Eatington,  and 
then  to  his  brother  and  successor,  Sir  Robert,  as 
sixth  in  descent  from  John  Shirley,  eldest  son  of 
Ralph  Shirley,  Esq.,  lord  of  Eatington;14  so  the  en- 
graving of  1658  gives  to  the  dramatist  the  arms  that 
of  right  had  belonged  to  Henry  Sherley,  gent.,  author 
of  The  Martyred  Soldier,  as  fifth  in  descent  from  the 
second  son  of  the  same  Lord  of  Eatington.15 

How  unfounded  was  James  Shirley's  claim  to  kin- 

12  Legh,   Accedens   of  Armory,    1576,    fols.    l07a-nob;    Bossewell, 
Workes  of  Armorie,  1 597,  fol.  10b. 

13  E.  P.  Shirley,  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1841,  p.  180;  1873,  p.  235. 

14  I  bid.,  1 84 1,  pp.  30  and  48;  1 873,  pp.  39  and  61. 
18 Ibid.,  1841,  p.  180;  1873,  p.  235. 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

ship  with  this  Sussex  branch,  has  been  made  evident 
by  the  researches  of  E.  P.  Shirley.  In  the  second  edi- 
tion of  his  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  he  gives  in  detail  the 
genealogy  of  the  Sherleys10  of  Wiston  in  Sussex.  In 
this  he  records  the  names  of  the  sons  and  daughters 
of  Sir  Thomas  Sherley  the  younger,  among  whom 
Henry  Sherley,  author  of  The  Martyred  Soldier, 
was  the  oldest  to  survive  to  manhood.  This  Henry 
Sherley,  according  to  Harl.  MSS.  4023,  p.  122  B,  was 
"sine  sobole  occisus."  If  this  be  true,  Henry  Sherley 
cannot  have  been  James  Shirley's  father;  if  the  list  of 
the  children  of  Sir  Thomas  be  correct,  Henry  Sher- 
ley cannot  have  been  James  Shirley's  brother.17  In 
1855,  E.  P.  Shirley  published  a  long  communication 
concerning  the  identity  of  Henry  Sherley.  With  re- 
gard to  Henry's  alleged  kinship  to  the  greater  dram- 
atist, he  says:  "I  wish  I  could  include  the  more  cele- 
brated poet  James  Shirley— the  author  of  those  noble 

16  To  base  any  argument  upon  the  spelling  of  the  name,  would  be 
unwise.  It  is  true  that  the  Sussex  branch,  according  to  E.  P.  Shirley 
(Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1841,  p.  179,  note),  generally  spelled  the  name 
"Sherley,"  and  that  the  dramatist  usually  spelled  it  "Shirley."  But 
in  this  we  find  no  perfect  uniformity.  The  name  is  spelled  with  an 
"i"  on  most  of  his  title-pages,  in  his  will  (if  my  transcript  be  accu- 
rate), and  even  in  the  engraving  of  1658,  "Jacobus  Shirlaeus."  On  the 
other  hand,  the  name  is  spelled  "Sherley"  in  the  probation  register  of 
Merchant  Taylors'  School;  "Shurley"  in  the  register  of  christenings 
of  St.  Giles  without  Cripplegate,  February  26,  1624/5;  "Shirly"  (but 
never  "Sherley")  on  a  small  minority  of  his  title-pages;  and  "Sherley" 
in  the  burial  record  of  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  October  29,  1666. 

17  E.  P.  Shirley,  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1841,  pp.  207-208 ;  1873,  pp. 
269-272. 

D33 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

verses  'The  glories  of  our  birth  and  state'— also 
among  the  worthies  of  the  family  tree ;  but  the  gene- 
alogy of  the  Shirleys  of  Sussex  is  so  well  ascertained 
that  I  fear  this  to  be  impossible."  18 

A  third  hypothesis  remains:  the  very  natural  as- 
sumption that  James  Shirley  the  dramatist,  born  in 
London  and  educated  in  a  London  school,  was  in 
some  way  related  to  that  James  Shirley  of  London, 
goldsmith,  who  was  the  financial  agent  of  the  Ply- 
mouth colony.  Unfortunately  for  our  hypothesis, 
however,  the  genealogy  of  this  family  also  is  well 
known— indeed,  a  matter  of  contemporary  official 
record.  In  the  Visitation  of  London  for  the  years 
1633,  1634,  and  1635, 19  we  find  the  pedigrees  of  John 
Sherley  of  London,  goldsmith,  and  of  his  brother, 
James  Sherley  of  London,  goldsmith,  second  and  third 
sons  respectively  of  Robert  Sherley  of  Wistonson  and 
of  London,  gentleman,  who  was  son  of  Rafe  or  Ralph 
Sherley  of  Wistonson,  Cheshire.  These  pedigrees 
name  the  children  of  both  John  and  James,  and  men- 
tion a  James  among  the  sons  of  each ;  but  they  forbid 
our  identifying  the  dramatist  with  any  James  belong- 

18  Notes  and  Queries,  1st  Ser.,  XII,  27;  July  14,  1855. 

19  Publications  of  the  Harleian  Society,  xvil :  The  Visitation  of 
London,  Anno  Domini  1633,  1634,  and  1635.  Made  by  Sr.  Henry 
St.  George,  Kt.,  Richmond  Herald,  and  Deputy  and  Marshal  to  Sr. 
Richard  St.  George,  Kt.,  Clarencieux  King  of  Arms.  Vol.  II.  Edited 
by  Joseph  Jackson  Howard,  LL.D.,  F.S.A.  London,  1883,  pp.  235- 
236. 

C'4] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

ing  to  this  London  family.  Our  dramatist  cannot  be 
identical  with  James  Sherley,  goldsmith,  for  the  will 
of  the  dramatist  names  a  list  of  children  that  in  no 
wise  agrees  with  those  of  the  goldsmith  as  recorded 
in  the  Visitation.  Our  dramatist  cannot  be  identical 
with  either  James  the  son  or  James  the  nephew  of  the 
goldsmith;  for  neither  could  have  been  born  as  early 
as  1596.  Moreover,  the  arms  of  this  family  as  exem- 
plified to  the  goldsmith's  father,  Robert  Sherley  of 
London,  gentleman,  by  Sir  William  Segar,  Septem- 
ber 10,  1609,  are  not  the  arms  used  by  James  Shirley 
the  dramatist,  but  "Gules,  a  chevron  cheeky  argent 
and  sable  between  three  fleurs-de-lis  or;  crest,  on  a 
torse,  three  arrows  or,  entwined  with  a  wreath  vert."20 
"These  bearings,"  says  E.  P.  Shirley,  "if  there  is  any 
use  or  meaning  in  the  science  of  heraldry,  point  to  a 
totally  different  origin  for  this  London  family."21 

In  short,  if  we  are  to  consider  only  the  three  hy- 
potheses proposed  by  previous  biographers,  we  find 
no  trace  of  Shirley's  parentage.  In  the  genealogies  of 
the  Shirleys  of  Warwick,  of  the  Sherleys  of  Sussex, 
and  of  the  Sherleys  who  were  London  goldsmiths, 
our  dramatist  receives  no  place. 

But  why  confine  ourselves  to  these  hypotheses? 
Why  not  seek  our  dramatist  (despite  his  arms)  out- 

20  Ibid.,  and  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1873,  p.  335. 

21  Stemmata  Shirleiana,  1873,  p.  335. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

side  the  three  lines  known  to  heraldry?  Once  we  ad- 
mit this  possibility,  we  come  immediately  to  a  fourth 
hypothesis:  an  hypothesis  not  before  proposed  by  any 
scholar,  and  yet,  in  view  of  the  evidence  extant,  an 
hypothesis  both  obvious  and  satisfying.  Two  clues 
we  have.  The  first  is  Wood's  statement  concerning 
the  place  of  Shirley's  birth.  "James  Shirley,  the  most 
noted  drammatick  Poet  of  his  time,"  says  Wood,  "did 
make  his  first  entry  on  the  stage  of  this  transitory 
world,  in  or  near,  the  Parish  of  S.  Mary  Wool- 
church  (where  the  Stocks  market  now  is)  within  the 
City  of  London."22  "So,"  adds  Wood  in  a  foot-note, 
"I  have  been  informed  by  his  Son,  the  Butler  of  Fur- 
nivals  inn,  in  Holbourn,  near  London."23  Our  sec- 
ond clue  concerns  the  date  of  Shirley's  birth:  a  series 
of  statements,  strangely  inconsistent,  in  the  probation 
register  of  Merchant  Taylors'  School.  In  the  tables 
of  the  "Schooles  Probation"  for  December  n,  1608, 
March  11,  1609,  and  September  11,  1609,  the  date  of 
Shirley's  "nativitie"  is  set  down  merely  as  "1596 
Sept."  In  the  seven  tables  following,  from  Decem- 
ber n,  1609,  to  December  11,  161 1,  inclusive,  the 
date  is  written  "1596  Sept.  13."  In  the  final  table, 
March  11,  1612,  the  date  becomes  "1596  Sept.  18." 
As    Dyce    remarked    in    his    account    of    Shirley, 

-'-'  Wood,  1691-1692,  II,  260;  cf.  1817,  III,  737. 
-    I  bid.,  note. 

[«5] 


<>     Zx mtt  i«-  (2*—t-  c/i   t<x.mti   &Jpur£u-  /HfioJ  £ajf4+T  *^ 

9  ^^^rfifj^^^^  ;*f^^ 


»^y  .-- 


W  '    '  v  9  /  '     C        *•  -  •  ■ 


-  *-.'•**/• 


RECORD   OF   THE    BAPTISM    OF    -JAMES    THE 
SONNE    OF  JAMES    SHARLIE" 

From  the  Register  of  St.  Mary  Woolchurcb,  September  7,  1596 


3HT    23MAI"    40    MEITqAO    3HT   HO   a  £  O  D  3  51 
"3IJHAH2    23MAI  TO    3V1M02 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

"Whether  the  latter  date  was  a  correction  of  the  for- 
mer, or  a  slip  of  the  pen,  cannot  be  discovered."24 

Such  are  our  two  clues:  as  to  the  place  of  Shirley's 
birth,  a  statement  at  once  definite  and  well  substan- 
tiated; as  to  the  date,  three  statements  of  unknown 
authority,  incomplete  or  contradictory,  but  agreeing 
upon  the  month  and  year.  If,  from  this  evidence,  we 
turn  now  to  the  parish  records  of  St.  Mary  Wool- 
church,  we  find,  indeed,  no  record  of  a  James  Shirley 
born  either  on  the  thirteenth  or  the  eighteenth  of 
September,  1596;  but  we  do  find,  in  the  record  of 
baptisms  for  that  year,  the  following  entry: 

James  the  sonne  of  James  Sharlie  was  baptized  the 
seventh  of  September.25 

Who  was  this  "James  the  sonne  of  James  Sharlie" 

24  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  iii,  note.  For  my  transcripts  from  this  entry- 
book,  I  am  indebted  to  the  courtesy  of  the  present  officers  of  Mer- 
chant Taylors'  School  and  to  the  accuracy  of  Misses  Stokes  &  Cox, 
record  agents,  London.  Concerning  the  original  records,  they  report: 
"The  volumes  of  this  Register  were  rebound  this  year  [191 ']>  hut  it 
contains  no  frontispiece  or  title-page.  The  pages  whence  references 
were  taken  were  all  in  good  state  of  preservation,  the  writing  good 
and  clear,  and  all  figures  distinctly  made.  Unfortunately,  several  gaps 
occur  throughout,  owing  to  missing  pages." 

25  A  photograph  of  the  page  of  the  parish  record  on  which  appears 
this  entry,  is  among  my  illustrations.  Cf.  p.  310  of  the  published 
Transcript  of  the  United  Parishes  of  S.  Mary  Woolnoth  and  S.  Mary 
Woolchurch  Haiv,  in  the  City  of  London  .  .  .  1886  .  .  .  For  the 
references  to  William  Sharlie  and  his  family,  see  Ibid.,  pp.  lviii,  300, 
301,  302,  370,  371,  372,  378,  379."  to  Thomas  and  his  family,  Ibid.,  pp. 
308,  347,  379;  to  James  and  his  family,  Ibid.,  pp.  310,  311,  312,  313. 
383,  384,  and  388. 

D7] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

baptized  in  the  same  parish  and  in  the  very  month  in 
which  our  James  Shirley  is  alleged  to  have  been 
born?  An  analysis  of  the  entries  that  contain  the 
family  name  enables  us  to  present  with  reasonable 
assurance  his  genealogy. 

The  first  of  the  name  to  be  mentioned  in  the  parish 
records  is  one  William  Sharlye,  Sharley,  Shorley,  or 
Sharlie— seemingly  the  grandfather  of  "James  son 
of  James."  To  him  and  to  his  wife  and  children  ap- 
parently refer  eleven  entries.  On  November  30, 
1564,  was  buried  an  unnamed  "childe  of  William 
Sharlie."  On  April  25,  1566,  was  baptized  "Thomas, 
son  of  William  Shorley";  on  January  18,  1567/8, 
"James,  son  of  William  Sharlie";  and  on  July  3, 
1569,  "Brigit,  daughter  of  William  Sharlie."  On 
July  19  of  the  same  year  was  buried  "Brigit,  daugh- 
ter of  William  Sharlie."  On  November  20,  1571, 
was  baptized  "Elizabeth,  daughter  of  William  Shar- 
lie"; and  on  November  13,  1573,  "Elizabeth,  daugh- 
ter of  William  Sharlie,"  was  buried.  In  the  list  of 
churchwardens  of  the  parish,  there  appears  the  dou- 
ble entry:  "1576.  John  Newman— William  Sharlye. 
1577.  William  Sharley— John  Maskall."  And  fin- 
ally, with  honorable  prefix,  were  buried,  February  21, 
1 592/3>  "Mr.  William  Sharlie,"  and,  on  March  1, 
1593/4,  "Mistris  Sharley,  Widoe." 

To  Thomas,  the  elder  son  of  William,  and  to  his 

C»8] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC   PERIOD 

family,  seemingly  refer  the  entries  following:  On 
June  29,  1590,  was  baptized  "Elizabeth,  daughter  of 
Thomas  Sharlie";  and  on  September  2,  1594,  "Eliza- 
beth, daughter  of  Thomas  Sharley,"  was  buried.  On 
January  21,  1598/9,  were  married  "Thomas  Sherle 
and  Elizabeth  Lacke." 

Of  more  immediate  interest  is  the  record  of  Wil- 
liam's second  son,  James,  and  of  his  family.  First 
among  his  children— presumably  the  future  drama- 
tist—was "James,  son  of  James  Sharlie,"  baptized 
September  7,  1596.  Next  comes  "Ellin,  daughter  of 
James  Sharlie,"  baptized  May  1,  1598.  Third  comes 
"Elizabeth,  daughter  of  James  Sharloe,"  baptized 
July  15,  1599.  The  fourth  is  "William,  son  of  James 
Sharlie,"  baptized  December  27,  1601,  and  presum- 
ably identical  with  the  "William  Sharlie"  of  un- 
named parentage  who  was  buried  September  12, 
1603.  The  fifth  is  "Marie,  daughter  of  James  Shar- 
lie," baptized  March  4,  1603/4,  and  buried  Septem- 
ber 18,  1606.  Finally,  on  June  2,  1617,  was  buried 
"Mr.  James  Sharlie." 

Such,  for  three  generations,  is  the  family  into 
which  was  born  "James,  son  of  James  Sharlie,"  bap- 
tized in  St.  Mary  Woolchurch,  September  7,  1596. 
Was  this  the  James  Shirley,  Dramatist,  who,  accord- 
ing to  the  statement  of  his  son  to  Wood,  was  born  in 
St.  Mary  Woolchurch,  and  who,  according  to  the 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

register  of  Merchant  Taylors'  School,  was  born  either 
on  the  thirteenth  or  the  eighteenth  of  September, 
1596— six  days  or  eleven  days,  be  it  noted,  subsequent 
to  the  date  of  this  baptismal  record?  Absolute  cer- 
tainty in  such  a  case  we  must  not  claim;  but,  in  view 
of  the  agreement  as  to  place  and  of  the  approximate 
agreement  as  to  date,  we  may,  until  further  evidence 
appears,  account  this  explanation  all  but  certain:  that 
the  "James,  son  of  James  Sharlie"  baptized  in  St. 
Mary  Woolchurch,  September  7,  1596,  was  none 
other  than  the  future  dramatist. 

Concerning  Shirley's  schooling,  we  have  the  main 
facts.  Wood  asserts  that  he  was  "educated  in  Gram- 
mar learning  in  Merchant  Taylors  School";26  and 
the  records  of  the  school  confirm  this  statement.  The 
eleven  tables  just  cited,  concur  in  the  statement  that 
he  was  admitted  to  the  school  October  4,  1608.  At 
the  "probation  and  triall  of  the  whole  school"  made 
by  the  master  and  three  ushers  December  11,  1608, 
Shirley  stood  thirteenth  in  the  fourth  form;  by 
March  he  was  in  the  ninth  place;  and  by  September, 
in  the  seventh.  Promoted  to  the  fifth  form,  he  fell 
temporarily  to  fifteenth  place;  but  in  the  tables  for 
September  11,  1610,  December  11,  1610,  and  March 
1 1,  161 1,  he  stood  first  in  his  form.  In  the  sixth  form, 
he  stood  tenth  in  September  and  December,   161 1; 

20  Wood,  1691-1692,  n,  260;  cf.  1817,  ill,  737. 


■"■    * 


6 


41 


.1 


4? 


^j 


5 


1 


?4| 

4!     ^     c     ^ 


^ 


¥ 


^ 
V 


>»V         - 


-    S 


'■ 


■ 


I 


a  j 

rH  o 

a  o 

u.  i 

o 

to  u 

H 

a:  ^ 

>-< 

h  &j 

2  * 

5 

W      0 

&• 

to 
.o 

•>* 

j  < 

*<* 

os  H 

£ 

►— < 

Gs 

X   ^ 

to  Z 

o 

o 

*  < 

3 

w  I 

••«. 

2  u 

E 

<  * 

u.  s 

O   u. 

-C: 

Q   ° 

g 

O 

I 

»£ 

OS 

u 

I 

O 

H 

0 

1— 1 

o 

I 

JJ 

T-> 

u 

w 

CO 

I 

co 

H 

3 

io 

S 

# 

O 

>— i 

s 
o. 

*2- 

< 

V 

> 

u 

X 

H 

to 

*a 

•— 1 

o 

3- 

re 

£ 

> 

co 

3r 

DC 

a 

<4 

U 

S 

-< 
^ 

> 

cj. 

<— < 

S 

-j- 

CO 

-u 

0 

3- 

o 

Q 

£ 

s 

io 

SQ 

O 

0 

U 

UJ 
50 

THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

and  eighth  on  March  1 1,  1612.  For  the  probations  of 
September  and  December,  1612,  the  page  is  missing; 
and  when  the  record  resumes  with  the  probation  of 
March,  1613,  the  name  of  Shirley  is  not  there.  We 
may  conclude  with  Dyce,  however,  that,  "he  left  the 
school  on  the  nth  of  June,  [1612],  the  annual  elec- 
tion day,  when  the  'upper  boys'  almost  invariably 
depart."27 

Of  James  Shirley's  university  career— if  indeed  he 
had  one— we  can  state  little  with  assurance;  but  the 
account  of  Wood  is  interesting  if  not  authoritative: 

Shirley  .  .  .  was  .  .  .  educated  in  Grammar  learn- 
ing in  Merchant  Taylors  School,  and  transplanted  thence 
to  S.  Johns  Coll.,  but  in  what  condition  he  lived  there, 
whether  in  that  of  a  Servitour,  Batler,  or  Commoner,  I 
cannot  yet  find.  At  the  same  time  Dr.  Will  Laud  presid- 
ing that  house,  he  had  a  very  great  affection  for  him,  espe- 
cially for  the  pregnant  parts  that  were  visible  in  him,  but 
then  having  a  broad  or  large  mole  upon  his  left  cheek, 
which  some  esteemed  a  deformity,  that  worthy  Doctor 
would  often  tell  him  that  he  was  an  unfit  Person  to  take 
the  sacred  function  upon  him,  and  should  never  have  his 
consent  so  to  do.  Afterwards  leaving  this  University 
without  a  degree,  he  went  to  Cambridge,  where  I  presume 
he  took  those  in  Arts:  so  that  soon  after  entring  into  holy 
Orders,  he  became  a  minister  of  God's  word  in,  or  near 
to,  S.  Albans  in  Hertfordshire.28 

27  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  iv. 

28  Wood,  1691-1692,  11,  260;  cf.  1817,  in,  737- 

C"3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Whether  these  assertions  of  Wood,  which  have 
been  received  and  elaborated  by  Shirley's  biogra- 
phers to  the  present  time,  should  be  accepted  in  a 
critical  study,  is  a  matter  open  to  debate.  It  would 
appear  that  Wood's  statements  may  not  have  been 
based  upon  a  first-hand  knowledge;  that  much  of  the 
supplementary  evidence  is  questionable  or  worse; 
and  that  no  traces  of  Shirley's  presence  have  been  dis- 
covered in  the  records  of  either  university.  Under 
these  circumstances,  a  detailed  examination  of  the 
evidence  is  here  appropriate. 

To  Wood's  assertion  that  Shirley  was  once  a  stu- 
dent of  St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  it  is  objected, 
first,  that  no  record  of  his  presence  has  survived  at 
the  university.  "I  never  remember,"  wrote  Bliss,  the 
editor  of  Wood's  Athence,  to  Dyce,  "to  have  had  a 
longer,  and  certainlyneveramoreunsatisf  actory  search 
than  in  the  present  instance;  for  no  entry  whatever  of 
James  Shirley  can  I  find,  although  I  have  looked  over 
every  book  that  can  throw  any  light  on  such  an  admis- 
sion, if  it  ever  took  place.  ...  I  have  also  had  access 
to  a  list  of  the  members  of  St.  John's  College,  actually 
in  Laud's  own  handwriting,  and  no  such  name  oc- 
curs."29 Are  we  to  accept  Wood's  assertions  in  the 
absence  of  official  record? 

And,  secondly,  what  witness  supports  Wood  in  de- 

28  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  v,  note. 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

daring  Shirley  an  Oxonian?  One  Shiels,  who  pub- 
lished in  1753  that  charming  work  of  fiction,  Cib- 
ber's  Lives  of  the  Poets.  Let  whoever  thinks  of 
Shiels  as  an  "authority,"  compare  his  account  of 
Shirley30  line  for  line  with  that  of  Wood.  If  ever 
there  was  a  cheerful  plagiarist,  not  lacking  in  imagi- 
nation, Shiels  was  the  man.  And  yet,  his  paraphrase 
of  Wood  has  recently  been  cited 31  as  if  to  corroborate 
Wood's  statements. 

But  the  portrait  of  Shirley— does  not  its  presence 
in  the  Bodleian  Gallery  at  Oxford  prove  that  Shirley 
was  once  a  student  there?  Not  necessarily.  Indeed, 
we  might  with  equal  reason  argue— if  we  had  no 
other  clue— that  the  story  that  Shirley  was  once  an 
Oxford  student  was  invented  to  account  for  the  pres- 
ence of  the  picture. 

And  finally,  it  might  even  be  objected  that  Wood 
himself  is  a  witness  neither  reliable  nor  competent: 
that  Wood— writing  an  Athena  Oxonienses— must 
claim  Shirley  as  a  sometime  Oxford  man — even  upon 
no  better  evidence  than  the  presence  of  the  portrait  in 
the  Bodleian  Gallery — or  must  omit  from  his  list  of 
notables  "the  most  noted  dramatic  poet  of  his  time"; 
and  that  Wood,  writing  in  1691-2  concerning  the 
events  of  161 2-1 8,  was  scarcely  in  a  position,  even 
had  he  the  desire,  to  set  forth  the  truth. 

30  Cibber,  1753,  II,  26-32.  31  Nissen,  pp.  7-8. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

The  second  half  of  this  objection  will  bear  elabo- 
ration. Was  Wood  in  a  position  to  know  the  facts 
concerning  Shirley's  alleged  career  at  Oxford?  It  is 
possible,  of  course,  that  he  had  access  to  university 
records  that  no  more  exist;  but  his  own  words,  we 
must  admit,  give  precisely  the  opposite  impression. 
He  gives  no  dates ;  he  "cannot  yet  find"  whether  Shir- 
ley lived  at  Oxford  as  "Servitour,  Batler,  or  Com- 
moner" ;  he  is  specific  only  with  respect  to  the  anec- 
dote of  the  mole  and  Dr.  Laud,  and  such  an  anecdote 
might  have  originated  anywhere.  Had  Wood  ever 
met  our  dramatist?  Not  when  Shirley  was  in  Oxford 
(if  he  ever  was)  :  for  Shirley  left  Merchant  Taylors' 
School  in  1612;  and  Wood  was  not  born  until  De- 
cember 17,  1632.32  Nor  had  Wood  met  our  dramatist 
in  London:  for  Shirley  died  in  1666;  and  Wood's 
first  visit  to  London,  as  he  himself  expressly  says,  was 
made  in  June,  1667. 33 

And  yet,  notwithstanding  these  objections,  I  incline 
to  the  opinion  that  Wood's  statements  may  be  substan- 
tially correct.  He  had  been  born  in  Oxford,  and  had 
there  spent  nearly  his  entire  life.  Who,  then,  so  well 
equipped  as  Wood  accurately  to  record  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  university?  Wood,  by  his  own  statement, 
had  been  "informed"  of  Shirley's  birthplace  by  Shir- 

32  Wood's  autobiography  in  The  Lives  of  .  .  .  Leland  .  .  .  Hearne 
and  .  .  .   Wood  .  .  .   Vol.  II.  Oxford  .  .  .  MDCCLXXII,  p.  2. 

33  Ibid.,  p.  206. 

[>4: 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

ley's  son,  "the  Butler  of  Furnivals  inn,  in  Holbourn, 
near  London."  May  he  not  have  been  "informed" 
by  the  same  son,  of  Shirley's  university  career?  The 
bare  fact  that  Bliss  could  find  no  record  of  Shirley 
at  Oxford  University  does  not  prove  that  such  a  rec- 
ord did  not  once  exist.  As  for  Shiels's  testimony,  it 
can  affect  the  truth  no  more  one  way  than  the  other. 
If  Shirley  made  but  a  brief  stay  at  the  university,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  Wood  could  give  no  positive  de- 
tails; but  as  to  the  mere  fact  of  Shirley's  presence, 
Wood  would  be  likely  to  know  the  truth,  and  would 
scarcely  dare  to  risk  a  falsehood  in  a  case  in  which, 
after  all,  he  had  so  little  to  gain  and  was  so  liable  to 
detection.  In  the  absence  of  official  record— espe- 
cially in  this  instance,  in  which  the  records  appear  to 
be  extant — we  must  be  cautious  in  accepting  Wood; 
nevertheless,  that  Shirley  was  for  a  time  a  student  at 
St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  is  at  least  possible. 

As  for  Wood's  other  assertion,  that  Shirley  was 
ultimately  a  resident  at  Cambridge,  its  truth  is  rather 
more  than  possible.  Indeed,  the  witnesses  are  even 
agreed  upon  his  college  and,  approximately,  upon 
the  year  of  his  degree.  The  year,  moreover,  tallies 
well  with  the  date  of  his  leaving  Merchant  Taylors' 
School. 

Of  the  evidence  for  Shirley's  residence  at  Cam- 
bridge—as of  the  evidence  for  his  residence  at  Ox- 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ford— much  is  open  to  objection.  Wood  himself  is 
especially  indefinite:  "Afterwards,  leaving  this  Uni- 
versity [Oxford]  without  a  degree,  he  went  to  Cam- 
bridge where  I  presume  he  took  those  in  Arts."  Even 
Wood,  be  it  noted,  merely  "presumes"  that  Shirley 
took  degrees. 

In  elaboration  and  support  of  Wood,  Dyce  offers 
two  pieces  of  evidence,  neither  of  which,  if  isolated, 
will  bear  examination.  The  first  of  these  is  an  alleged 
transcript  of  a  title-page  quoted  in  Censura  Literaria 
"from  a  MS.  note  to  Astle's  copy  of  Wood's  Athena" 
as  follows:  "Eccho,  or  the  Infortunate  Lovers,  a 
poem,  by  James  Sherley,  Cant,  in  Art.  Bacc.  Lond. 
1618.  8vo.  Primum  hunc  Arethusa  mihi  concede 
laborem."34  This  transcript  follows  Wood  in  ascrib- 
ing Shirley's  baccalaureate  degree  to  Cambridge,  and 
includes  a  date  by  which  Shirley  might  possibly  have 
achieved  the  honor.  But  will  the  transcript  bear 
examination?  Do  not  the  order  and  content  of  this 
title-page  render  it  an  object  of  suspicion?  Why 
should  the  motto  stand  below  the  date?  Why  should 
the  abbreviation  "8vo."  stand  amidst  the  title?  If  the 
transcriber  took  such  liberties  as  these,  why  may  he 
not  have  inserted  the  "Cant,  in  Art.  Bacc."  upon  his 
own    authority— or    perhaps    on    the    authority    of 

M  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  vi,  quoting  Brydges,  Censura  Literaria,  II,  381, 
cd.  1815.    The  edition  of  1806  gives  the  passage  as  II,  382. 

[*6] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Wood?  In  the  Stationers'  Register,  moreover,  the 
entry  for  this  book  runs  thus:  "4  Januarij  1617  [i.e. 
1617/18].  Ecc\_h~\o  and  Narcissus  the  2  vnfortunate 
Louers  written  by  Jeames  Sherley."35  In  view  of  all 
these  uncertainties,  do  Dyce  and  his  modern  follow- 
ers do  well  to  offer  as  proof  of  Shirley's  university 
degree,  this  note  in  manuscript  written  no  one  knows 
by  whom  or  when?  Even  were  the  transcript  self- 
consistent,  why  should  its  anonymous  testimony  be 
accepted? 

As  a  further  proof  that  Shirley  received  a  bacca- 
laureate degree  from  Cambridge,  Dyce  offers  a 
manuscript  addition  written  upon  the  fly-leaf  of  a 
copy  of  Lacrymce  Cantabrigienses,  16 19,  in  the  pos- 
session of  one  David  Laing  of  Edinburgh,  and  by  him 
communicated  to  Dyce.36  This  addition  consists  of 
verses  and  an  epitaph,  signed  "Flens  post  posuit  Jac. 
Shirley,  Aul.  Cather.  in  Art.  Bac."  A  portion  of 
these  verses  Shirley  elsewhere  acknowledged  as  his 
own;  but  the  value  of  the  alleged  signature  as  proof 
of  Shirley's  academic  honors  depends  upon  who  put 
it  in  this  book,  and  when.  Without  further  informa- 
tion, its  evidence  is  worthless. 

Dyce's  third  witness,  fortunately  for  Wood,  is  more 
reliable:  a  "memorandum  in  the  hand-writing  of  the 

35  Stationers'  Register,  ed.  Arber,  III,  286. 
38  Works,  vi,  514-515,  note. 

£*7l 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

accurate  Dr.  Farmer"37  in  Dyce's  copy  of  Shirley's 
Poems,  1646:  "James  Shirley,  B.  A.,  Cath.  Hall, 
1619."38  If  we  grant— as  perhaps  we  should  not 
grant— that  Dyce  was  correct  in  assuming  this  note  to 
be  by  Farmer,  we  have  here  the  testimony  of  the  man 
to  whose  favorable  mention  of  Shirley  in  An  Essay 
on  the  Learning  of  Shakspere,  ij6j,  Dyce39  and 
Ward40  attribute  the  revival  of  Shirley's  reputation 
as  a  dramatist.  "What  was  Dr.  Farmer's  authority 
for  the  memorandum,"  says  Dyce,  "I  cannot  dis- 
cover."41 Were  we  relying  wholly  on  the  evidence 
of  "the  accurate  Dr.  Farmer,"  this  admission  would 
be  fatal ;  but  as  Dr.  Farmer's  testimony  is  but  supple- 
mentary, we  may  content  ourselves  with  the  possibil- 
ity that  Farmer,  as  principal  librarian  of  Cambridge 
University,  had  access  to  sources  of  information  now 
unknown. 

The  best  evidence  that  Wood  spoke  truly  concern- 
ing Shirley's  connection  with  Cambridge  University, 
occurs  in  the  thirteenth  epigram  in  the  first  book  of 
Two  Bookes  of  Epigrammes  and  Epitaphs  .  .  .  Writ- 
ten By  Thomas  Bancroft  .  .  .   1639: 

37  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  vi. 
88  Ibid. 

38  Ibid.,  I,  xi. 

40  Ward,  in  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  LII,  129,  and  in  Eng- 
lish Dramatic  Literature,  III,  95. 

41  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  vi,  note. 

[28] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 
TO  IAME[S]  SHIRLEY 

lames,  thou  and  I  did  spend  some  precious  yeeres 
At  Katherine-Hall ;  since  when,  we  sometimes  feele 

In  our  poetick  braines,  (as  plaine  appeares) 

A  whirling  tricke,  then  caught  from  Katherine's 
wheele.42 

Here  at  last  we  have  passably  good  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  Wood;  for  that  two  James  Shirleys  of  the 
period  were  possessed  of  "poetick  braines"  is  scarcely 
possible. 

If  to  this  explicit  statement  of  the  epigrammatist, 
we  add  the  fact  that  Shirley,  later  in  life,  was  the 
author  of  a  Latin  grammar,  we  need  neither  the 
anonymous  insertions  in  Astle's  copy  of  Wood's 
Athena  and  Laing's  copy  of  Lacrymce  Cantabrigi- 
enses,  nor  the  "memorandum  in  the  hand-writing  of 
the  accurate  Dr.  Farmer,"  to  prove  that  James  Shir- 
ley "did  spend  some  precious  yeeres  at  Katherine- 
Hall."  True  it  is,  that  Shirley's  name  appears  no- 
where in  the  records  of  that  college ;  but  in  this  case, 
unlike  that  of  St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  the  omis- 
sion is  easily  explained:  according  to  a  letter  quoted 
by  Dyce,  "the  dates  in  the  Admission  and  Commons' 
Books  at  Catherine  Hall  go  no  farther  back  than  the 
year  1642." 43    In  view,  therefore,  of  the  testimony  of 

42  Cf.  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  v,  and  note. 

43  Ibid.,  1,  v-vi,  note. 

[*9] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Bancroft's  epigram,  and  of  the  absence  of  all  evidence 
to  the  contrary,  we  may  conclude  that  Wood's  asser- 
tion concerning  Shirley's  residence  at  Cambridge  is 
highly  probable. 

Whether,  as  Wood  "presumes,"  Shirley  took  de- 
grees at  Cambridge,  is  another  question;  and  the  fact 
that  Shirley  on  no  title-page  extant  makes  use  of  a 
degree,  renders  this  question  doubly  pointed.  Fleay, 
to  be  sure,  accepting  the  accuracy  of  the  manuscript 
note  in  Astle's  copy  of  Wood's  Athence,  insists  that  on 
Januarys  1617/18,  the  date  when  Eccho  and  Narcis- 
sus was  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register,44  Shirley 
was  already  "B.A."45  But  of  the  title-page  noted  in 
Astle's  volume,  no  original  exists ;  and  we  have  seen 
reason  to  believe  that  the  words  "Cant,  in  Art.  Bacc." 
may  be  an  insertion  of  the  transcriber.  Probably 
much  more  reliable  is  the  "memorandum  in  the  hand- 
writing of  the  accurate  Dr.  Farmer":  "James  Shir- 
ley, B.  A.,  Cath.  Hall,  1619."46  But  precisely  how 
reliable  this  is,  we  are  now  unable  to  discover.  If, 
as  we  believe,  the  "Mr.  James  Sharlie"  who  was 
buried  on  June  2,  1617,  was  the  father  of  the  future 
dramatist,  then  it  is  not  impossible  that  the  death  of 
the  father  may  have  prevented  the  graduation  of  the 

"  S.  R.,  ed.  Arber,  ill,  286. 
48  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vm,  405. 
46  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  vi. 

[30] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

son.  In  short,  the  question  whether  Shirley  actually 
received  even  a  baccalaureate  degree  cannot  with  cer- 
tainty be  answered. 

I  conclude  then,  with  respect  to  Shirley's  alleged 
university  career:  (i)  that,  notwithstanding  the  ab- 
sence of  Shirley's  name  from  the  extant  records  of 
St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  his  residence  there  is,  in 
view  of  the  testimony  of  Wood,  a  possibility;  (2) 
that,  in  view  of  Wood's  testimony  and  of  the  explicit 
statement  of  the  Bancroft  epigram,  Shirley's  resi- 
dence at  Catherine  Hall,  Cambridge,  is  highly 
probable;  but  (3)  that  until  more  certain  evidence 
appears,  we  shall  do  well  to  avoid  saying  that  Shirley 
did  or  did  not  receive  degrees  in  arts. 

The  strongest  evidence,  however,  of  James  Shirley's 
university  training,  is  to  be  found  not  in  these  fugitive 
documents  but  in  his  subsequent  career  and  in  his 
works. 

For  the  five  or  six  years  from  Shirley's  supposed 
departure  from  the  university  to  his  appearance  as  a 
London  playwright,  we  know  of  Shirley  chiefly  from 
the  account  of  Wood : 

Soon  after  entring  into  holy  Orders,  he  became  a  Min- 
ister of  God's  word  in,  or  near  to,  S.  Albans  in  Hertford- 
shire. But  being  then  unsetled  in  his  mind,  he  changed 
his  Religion  for  that  of  Rome,  left  his  Living,  and  taught 
a  Grammar  School  in  the  said  Town  of  S.  Alban;  which 

C3i] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

employment  also  he  finding  uneasie  to  him,  he  retired  to 
the  Metropolis,  lived  in  Greys  inn,  and  set  up  for  a  play- 
maker.47 

Of  the  accuracy  of  this  account,  we  cannot  judge. 
Concerning  his  ministry,  we  have  no  evidence;  con- 
cerning his  conversion  to  the  Roman  Church,  we 
have  only  what  Dyce  and  other  scholars  have  been 
pleased  to  discover  in  his  dramatic  works;48  and  con- 
cerning his  term  as  pedagogue,  we  have  merely  the 
more  or  less  unauthenticated  statements  contained  in 
various  histories  of  Hertfordshire.  Of  these,  the 
most  specific  account  is  that  contributed  by  Leach  to 
Page's  Victoria  History  of  the  County  of  Hertford- 
shire: 

In  January,  1621,  another  distinguished  author  illumi- 
nated the  head  mastership  of  St.  Albans.  This  was  James 
Shirley,  known  to  fame,  that  is,  to  the  Dictionary  of  Na- 
tional Biography,  as  'the  last  of  the  Elizabethan  drama- 
tists.' ...  At  St.  Albans  the  reign  of  Shirley,  or  Sherley 
as  he  was  called,  was  signalized  by  a  large  expenditure 
on  school  building,  the  roof  being  renewed  with  no  less 
than  624  lbs.  of  lead,  and  by  the  entry  in  the  account 
books  not  merely  of  the  number  but  of  the  names  of  the 
boys  who  paid  entrance  fees.  Eight  names  were  entered 
in  1622-3  in  a  most  excellent  copper-plate  hand.  On  1 
July,    1624,    Shirley   left   St.   Albans,    having   become    a 

47  Wood,  1691-1692,  ii,  260-261 ;  cf.  1817,  in,  737. 

48  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  vii,  note,  and  Gifford,  Ibid.,  11,  52,  note;  and 
Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III,  90,  note. 

[32] 


THE  PREDRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Romanist,  and  .  .  .  was  followed  in  January,  1625,  by 
John  Westerman  .  .  .  appointed  {Corporation  Minutes~\ 
at  St.  Albans  1  July,  1624.40 

This  record  brings  us  at  last  to  the  year  of  Shirley's 
appearance  as  a  London  playwright;  but  before  we 
enter  upon  the  first  period  of  his  dramatic  work,  we 
may  do  well  to  summarize  our  conclusions  concern- 
ing his  predramatic  period.  That  James  Shirley  the 
dramatist  is  to  be  identified  with  that  "James  the 
sonne  of  James  Sharlie"  who  was  baptized  in  St. 
Mary  Woolchurch  on  September  7,  1596,  and  that  he 
was  not  immediately  connected  with  the  Shirleys  of 
Warwick,  the  Sherleys  of  Sussex,  or  the  Sherleys  who 
were  London  goldsmiths,  is  all  but  certain.  That  he 
attended  Merchant  Taylors'  School  from  1608  to 
161 2  is  definitely  established.  But  that  he  went 
thence  to  St.  John's  College,  Oxford,  and  from  there 
to  Catherine  Hall,  Cambridge;  that  he  was  gradu- 
ated B.A.  from  Catherine  Hall,  either  in  1619,  as 
Farmer  holds,orsome  time  before  January  4, 1617/18, 
as  Fleay  would  have  it,  or  at  some  other  time;  that 
he  subsequently  proceeded  to  his  M.A.,  took  orders, 
held  a  living  in  or  near  St.  Albans,  turned  Romanist, 
and  so  became  master  of  the  grammar  school  of  the 
same  town,  founded  by  charter  of  Edward  VI :  all 
this— unless  perhaps  that  he  "did  spend  some  pre- 

49  Page,  The  Victoria  History  of  the  County  of  Hertfordshire,  II,  63. 

1331 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

cious  yeeres  at  Katherine-Hall"  and  that  he  was  for  a 
time  master  of  the  St.  Albans  school  — rests  upon 
such  vague  authority  that,  although  we  may  account 
it  probable,  we  must  not  count  it  certain.  In  short, 
we  believe  that  we  know  something  of  Shirley's 
parentage,  birth,  and  early  schooling;  but  of  his 
youth  and  early  manhood,  we  must  be  content,  at 
present,  to  offer  merely  this:  that  the  James  Shirley 
who,  about  the  year  1625,  "retired  to  the  Metropolis, 
lived  in  Greys  inn,  and  set  up  for  a  playmaker,"  had 
somehow  acquired  a  proper  education,  and  could — 
or  at  least  did— sign  himself  "James  Shirley,  gentle- 
man." 


D4] 


CHAPTER  II 

SHIRLEY'S  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

1625-1632 

IN  considering  the  career  of  Shirley  from  the 
licensing  of  his  earliest  play,  Love  Tricks,  or 
The  School  of  Complement,  February  10, 
1624/5,  t0  tne  licensing  of  The  Ball,  November  16, 
1632,  we  may  best  marshal  our  material  under  three 
heads:  first,  the  circumstances  of  Shirley's  arrival  in 
London;  second,  the  chronology  of  the  licensing  and 
publication  of  his  works;  and,  third,  the  disputed 
identity  of  one  of  his  early  plays,  The  Brothers  of 
1626. 

Of  the  date  when  Shirley  took  up  his  residence  in 
London  we  have  no  definite  evidence.  Wood  says 
merely  that,  finding  the  teaching  of  St.  Albans  gram- 
mar-school "uneasie  to  him,"  Shirley  "retired  to  the 
Metropolis,  lived  in  Greys  inn,  and  set  up  for  a  play- 
maker."1  Whether  he  was  in  residence  in  London 
when,  on  February   10,    1624/5,  his  first  play  was 

1  Wood,  1691-1692,  II,  261 ;  cf.  1817,  in,  737. 

[35] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

licensed  for  presentation,  we  cannot  prove;2  but  that 
he  was  living  in  town  when,  on  February  26,  his 
eldest  son  was  baptized  at  St.  Giles,  Cripplegate, 
seems  probable.  In  the  record  of  christenings  in  the 
Register  Book  belonging  to  the  parish  church  of  St. 

2  Nissen,  in  his  monograph  on  Shirley,  attempts  to  place  the  date 
when  Shirley  took  up  his  residence  in  London,  in  the  period  between 
February  10,  1624/5,  and  March  27,  1625.  His  argument  in  support 
of  this  conclusion  runs  as  follows: 

"Sir  Henry  Herbert,  the  well-known  Master  of  the  Revels,  licensed 
on  February  10,  1625,  the  presentation  of  the  play  Love  Tricks,  with 
Complements.  .  .  .  That  Shirley  did  not  live  in  London  at  that  time, 
may  be  inferred  from  a  passage  in  the  prologue  to  this  play: 

"  '.  .  .  This  play  is 
The  first  fruits  of  a  Muse  that  before  this 
Never  saluted  audience,  nor  doth  mean 
To  swear  himself  a  factor  for  the  scene.' 

"This  means,"  continues  Nissen,  "that  our  author,  at  the  time  of 
the  composition  and  of  the  first  presentation  of  the  piece,  had  by  no 
means  the  intention  of  devoting  himself  to  the  profession  of  writing 
plays;  he  probably,  therefore,  at  that  time  still  resided  at  St.  Albans. 
In  the  following  month,  on  March  27,  1625,  King  James  I  died.  Shir- 
ley composed  upon  the  death  of  James  a  poem  that  must  have  orig- 
inated soon  afterwards.  In  it  he  relates  that,  on  the  news  of  the 
death  of  the  monarch,  he  went  to  the  king's  palace  and  from  there  to 
Whitehall,  where  he  saluted  the  new  king,  Charles.  When  the  change 
of  kings  took  place,  he  was,  therefore,  present  in  London.  From  this 
it  follows  that  he  transferred  his  home  to  the  metropolis  in  the  time 
between  February  10  and  March  27,  1625."     (Nissen,  pp.  8-9.) 

In  certain  of  Nissen's  conclusions,  and  still  less  in  Nissen's  argu- 
ments, I  find  myself  unable  to  concur.  I  think  it  probable  that  Shirley 
was  in  London  at  the  time  of  King  James's  death;  but  my  belief  is 
not  strengthened  by  the  argument  just  quoted.  Surely  the  mere  fact 
that  Shirley,  in  his  poem  Upon  the  Death  of  King  James  {Works,  VI, 
443),  represents  himself  as  doing  what  any  London  gentleman  might 
think  to  do,  is  no  proof  that  Shirley  really  did  it.  The  poet's  visit 
to  the  king's  palace  and  to  Whitehall  may,  of  course,  be  actual;  but  I 
see  no  more  necessity   for   accounting  these  lines   an   autobiographic 

C3«] 


THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Giles  without  Cripplegate,  there  occurs,  under  the 
date  of  February  26,  1624/5,  the  following  entry: 

Mathias,  sonne  of  Mr.  James  Shurley,  gentleman.3 

That  "Mr.  James  Shurley,  gentleman,"  is  James 
Shirley  the  dramatist,  we  need  not  question;  for,  in 
the  will  of  the  dramatist,  which  I  shall  later  quote 
more  fully,  he  refers  to  his  "eldest  son,  Mathias 
Shirley."4  Small  is  the  chance  that  there  should  be 
in  London  at  this  time,  more  than  one  James  Shirley, 
father  of  a  Mathias.     We  know,  at  all  events,  that 

document  than  I  do  for  accounting  Shakspere's  vituperative  sonnets 
other  than  artificial  exercises.  But,  granted  that  Shirley  was  "present 
in  London"  when  the  change  of  kings  took  place:  does  it  follow  that 
he  had  "transferred  his  home  to  the  metropolis"?  Was  Shirley  in- 
capable of  being  "present  in  London"  merely  as  a  visitor?  Why,  from 
Shirley's  poem  Upon  the  Death  of  King  James,  must  one  infer  that 
Shirley  had  "transferred  his  home"? 

And  what  of  Nissen's  argument  that  Shirley  could  not  have  come  to 
London  before  February  io,  1624/5?  What  has  Shirley's  prologue 
to  do  with  it  ? 

".  .  .  This  play  is 
The  first  fruits  of  a  Muse  that  before  this 
Never  saluted  audience,  nor  doth  mean 
To  swear  himself  a  factor  for  the  scene." 

In  the  first  place,  why  should  we  accept  these  lines  as  a  true  statement 
of  the  poet's  purpose?  Does  not  many  a  young  dramatist  adopt  this 
very  pose  until  he  finds  how  the  critics  like  his  work?  And  secondly, 
even  if  we  grant  that  this  passage  correctly  represents  the  attitude 
of  Shirley  on  the  day  the  play  was  licensed,  does  it  follow  that  Shirley, 
at  that  time,  "still  resided  at  St.  Albans"?  Could  not  all  that  the 
prologue  says  be  true,  even  though  Shirley  had  lived  in  London  all  his 
life? 

3  From  a  transcript  of  the  original  record,  made  for  the  purposes 
of  this  monograph. 

4  Prerogative  Court  of  Canterbury,  Mico,  folio  170. 

[37] 

40146 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

James  Shirley  the  goldsmith  had  no  son  so  named.5 
If,  then,  our  dramatist  had  an  eldest  son  baptized  at 
St.  Giles,  Cripplegate,  on  February  26,  1624/5,  may 
we  not  infer  that,  on  or  before  that  date,  James  Shir- 
ley had  taken  up  his  residence  in  London?6 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  date  of  Shirley's  en- 
trance into  London,  the  years  1625  and  1626  saw  the 
new  dramatist  well  on  his  way  to  an  assured  compe- 
tence. His  first  play,  Love  Tricks,  with  Comple- 
ments, was  licensed  by  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  Master  of 
the  Revels,  on  February  10,  1624/5  ;7  and  his  "second 
birth,"  The  Maid's  Revenge,  on  February  9,  1625/6.8 
A  third  play,  The  Wedding,  the  licensing  of  which 
is  not  on  record,  was  presented,  if  Fleay's  hypothesis 
be  right,  on  May  31,  1626.9  A  fourth,  licensed  as 
The  Brothers,  November  4,  1626,10  has  been  gener- 
ally identified  with  the  play  published  under  the  same 
title  in  1652;  but  is  probably  to  be  identified  neither 

5  Harleian  Society:  The  Visitation  of  London,  II,  235-236. 

6  "It  is  possible,"  writes  Ward  {English  Dramatic  Literature,  III, 
90),  "that  an  early  marriage,  which  there  are  indications  of  his  having 
contracted  in  or  about  1623,  may  have  added  to  his  difficulties" — an 
early  marriage  at  the  immature  age  of  twenty-seven!  If  this  Mathias 
was  Shirley's  eldest  son,  Ward  elsewhere  writes  (DNB.,  LII,  126), 
"an  early  marriage  may  have  played  its  part  in  the  crisis  of  his  life." 
"Ward  halt  es  fur  moglich,"  says  Nissen  (p.  8),  "dass  er  durch  eine 
friihe  Ehe  .   .   .   in  bedrangte  Lage  geraten  sei" I 

7  Malone,  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  231,  note. 

8  Ibid. 

9  Fleay,  in  English  Drama,  II,  236,  and  in  Anglia,  VIII,  405. 

10  Malone,  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  231,  note. 

D»3 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

with  The  Brothers  of  1652  nor  with  the  play  printed 
by  Bullen,  in  1883,  as  Dicke  of  Devonshire.11  The 
identity  of  The  Brothers  I  shall  discuss  at  length  in 
the  latter  portion  of  this  chapter;  the  date  of  The 
Wedding  I  shall  consider  presently:  first,  however, 
it  is  fitting  that  I  say  a  word  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
evidence  by  which  we  determine  the  dates  when  Shir- 
ley's plays  were  licensed  for  presentation. 

For  the  dates  of  the  licensing  of  Shirley's  plays, 
our  ultimate  source  is  the  office-book  of  Sir  Henry 
Herbert,  Master  of  the  Revels.12  This  book,  unfor- 
tunately, is  not  extant:  we  know  it  only  through  the 
extracts  and  summaries  that  Edmond  Malone  em- 
bodied in  his  edition  of  Shakspere,  1790  and  1821. 
As  Malone  did  not  make  a  complete  transcript  of  the 

11  In  A  Collection  of  Old  English  Plays  .  .  .  Vol.  II,  .  .  .  London. 
1883. 

12  Concerning  this  office-book,  Malone  wrote  thus:  "For  the  use  of 
this  very  curious  and  valuable  manuscript,  I  am  indebted  to  Francis 
Ingram,  of  Ribbisford  near  Bewdley  in  Worcestershire,  Esq.,  Deputy 
Remembrancer  in  the  Court  of  Exchequer.  It  has  lately  been  found 
in  the  same  old  chest  which  contained  the  manuscript  Memoirs  of 
Lord  Herbert  of  Cherbury,  from  which  Mr.  Walpole  about  twenty 
years  ago  printed  the  Life  of  that  nobleman,  who  was  elder  brother  to 
Sir  Henry  Herbert."  (Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  57,  note.) 
Again  Malone  writes:  "The  office-book  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert  contains 
an  account  of  almost  every  piece  exhibited  at  any  of  the  theatres 
from  August,  1623,  to  the  commencement  of  the  rebellion  in  1641, 
and  many  curious  anecdotes  relative  to  them,  some  of  which  I  shall 
presently  have  occasion  to  quote.  This  valuable  manuscript,  having 
lain  for  a  considerable  time  in  a  damp  place,  is  unfortunately  dam- 
aged, and  in  a  very  mouldering  condition:  however,  no  material  part 
of  it  appears  to  have  perished."     (Ibid.,  59,  note.) 

[39] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

record,  but  contented  himself  with  bringing  together 
and  tabulating  the  entries  concerning  the  plays  of 
any  dramatist,  his  notes  are  liable  both  to  error  and 
to  omission.  We  may  accept  as  probably  accurate 
the  statement  of  Malone  that  he  found  in  Herbert's 
office-book  a  record  of  the  licensing  of  Love  Tricks, 
The  Maid's  Revenge,  and  The  Brothers,  on  the  dates 
mentioned;  but  we  may  not  infer  from  the  fact  that 
Malone  gives  no  record  of  The  Wedding,  that  there- 
fore it  was  never  licensed.  Herbert  may  have  entered 
the  play,  and  Malone  have  neglected  to  transcribe  the 
entry. 

However  this  may  be,  no  record  of  the  licensing  of 
The  Wedding  has  been  preserved.  Ward,  indeed, 
asserts  that  it  was  licensed  "9  Feb.  1626";13  but  this 
statement  is  obviously  a  clerical  error  due  to  a  repe- 
tition of  the  date  above — that  of  the  licensing  of  The 
Maid's  Revenge.  The  accepted  date  of  presentation 
is  fixed  by  a  passage  in  a  mock  legal  document  em- 
bodied in  Act  III,  scene  ii:  "In  witness  whereof,  I 
have  hereunto  put  my  hand  and  seal  .  .  .  the  last  day 
of  the  first  merry  month  and  in  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  King— Cupid"; 14  i.e.,  the  thirty-first  day 
of  May,  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King 
Charles.     For  this  clever  and  plausible  interpreta- 

13  Ward,  in  DNB.,  LII,  130. 

14  The  Wedding,  in,  ii ;  Works,  I,  406. 

C40] 


THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

tion,  chronologists  are  indebted  to  Fleay.15  As  the 
play  was  printed  in  1629,  Fleay's  error— if  he  be  in 
error— is  not  large. 

For  nearly  two  years  after  the  licensing  of  The 
Brothers  of  1626,  Shirley  brought  no  new  play  before 
the  public;  then,  on  October  3,  1628,  he  obtained 
license  for  The  Witty  Fair  One.16  Thirteen  months 
later,  on  November  3,  1629,  The  Grateful  Servant 
was  licensed  under  the  title  The  Faithful  Servant.17 
According  to  their  title-pages,  these  two  plays,  like  all 
other  extant  plays  of  Shirley's  first  dramatic  period, 
with  the  single  exception  of  Changes,  or  Love  in  a 
Maze18  were  acted  by  the  Queen's  men  at  Drury 
Lane. 

In  the  year  last  mentioned,  1629,  The  Wedding— 
acted,  according  to  Fleay's  hypothesis,  three  years 
before— was  given  to  the  press:  the  earliest  play  of 
Shirley  to  be  published.  Fleay  asserts  that  it  was  en- 
tered for  J.  Grove;10  but  in  the  Stationers'  Register 
I  find  no  record.  The  play,  dedicated  to  William 
Gowre,  Esq.,  was  introduced  by  commendatory  verses 

15  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  405. 

16  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  231,  note. 

17  Ibid. 

18  "Presented  at  the  Private  House  in  Salisbury  Court,  by  the  Com- 
pany of  his  Majesties  Revels."  (Title-page  of  1632;  from  the  copy 
belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq.) 

19  Fleay,  in  English  Drama,  II,  233  ;  but  with  a  reference  to  S.  R., 
1638,  April  28. 

C4i] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

by  Edmond  Colles,  Robert  Harvey,  Thomas  May, 
John  Ford  the  dramatist,  and  William  Habington. 
Of  these  verses,  the  lines  of  Ford  shall  serve  as  an 
example: 

Of  this  Ingenious  Comedy,  The  WEDDING: 
To  Mr.  James  Shirley,  the  Author. 

The  bonds  are  equal,  and  the  marriage  fit, 

Where  judgment  is  the  bride,  the  husband  wit. 

Wit  hath  begot,  and  judgment  hath  brought  forth, 

A  noble  issue  of  delight  and  worth, 

Grown  in  this  Comedy  to  such  a  strength 

Of  sweet  perfection,  as  that  not  the  length 

Of  days,  nor  rage  of  malice,  can  have  force 

To  sue  a  nullity,  or  work  divorce 

Between  this  well-trimmed  Wedding  and  loud  Fame, 

Which  shall  in  every  age  renew  thy  name.20 

The  title-page  of  this  edition  reads: 

The  Wedding.  As  it  was  lately  Acted  by  her  Maies- 
ties  Seruants,  at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  By 
lames  Shirley,  Gent.  Horat. — Multaq;  pars  mei  Vitabit 
Libitinam— London.  Printed  for  Iohn  Groue,  and  are  to 
be  sold  at  his  shop  at  Furniualls  Inne  Gate  in  Holborne. 
i629.20a 

A  year  later,  on  February  26,  1629/30,  The  Grate- 

'-"  (Forks,  1,  lxxi. 

20a  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 


THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

ful  Servant  was  entered  upon  the  Stationers'  Register 
for  J.  Grove.21    The  title-page  of  this  edition  reads: 

The  Gratefvll  Servant.  A  Comedie.  As  it  was  lately 
presented  with  good  applause  at  the  priuate  House  in 
Drury-Lane,  By  her  Majesties  Servants.  Written  by 
lames  Shirley  Gent. — Vsque  ego  postera  Crescam  laude 
recens.  London.  Printed  by  B.  A.  and  T.  F.  for  John 
Groue,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  Furnivals-Inne 
gate,  1630.22 

Prefixed  to  the  published  play  were  nine  poems,  in- 
cluding one  by  Philip  Massinger,  all  written  in  lavish 
commendation  of  the  comedy.  "The  reason,"  wrote 
Shirley,  "why  my  play  cometh  forth  ushered  by  so 
many  lines,  was  the  free  vote  of  my  friends,  whom  I 
could  not  with  civility  refuse.  I  dare  not  own  their 
character  of  myself,  or  play;  but  I  must  join  with 
them  that  have  written,  to  do  the  comedians  justice, 
amongst  whom,  some  are  held  comparable  with  the 
best  that  are,  and  have  been,  in  the  world."23 

In  the  following  year,  1631,  three  more  of  Shirley's 
plays  were  licensed  for  presentation:  The  Traitor, 
May  4;24  The  Duke,  May  17  ;25  and  Love's  Cruelty, 

21 S.  R.,  iv,  195. 

22  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

23  Works,  n,  5. 

24  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  231,  note. 

25  Ibid.,  232,  note.     Fleay,  in  English  Drama,  II,  237,  and  Ward,  in 
DNB.,  Lll,  132  but  not  133,  misprint  this  date  as  May  7  for  May  17. 

[43] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

November  14. 26  The  second  of  these  is  probably 
identical  with  the  play  which,  when  entered  in  the 
Stationers'  Register,  July  29,  1639,  was  entitled  The 
Humorous  Courtier.21 

To  the  same  year,  1631,  belongs  the  publication  of 
Love  Tricks,  under  the  new  title  The  Schoole  of 
Complement,  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  for 
F.  Constable,  February  25,  1630/3 1.28  The  title- 
page  of  this  edition  reads: 

The  Schoole  of  Complement.  As  it  was  acted  by  her 
Maiesties  Seruants  at  the  Priuate  house  in  Drury  Lane. — 
Ha?c  placuit  semel.  By  J.  S.  London,  Printed  by  E.  A. 
for  Francis  Constable,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  in 
Pauls  Church-yard,  at  the  signe  of  the  Crane.     1631.29 

The  year  1632  was  equally  productive.  On  Janu- 
ary 10,  163 1/2,  was  licensed  The  Changes;30  on 
April  20,  1632,  Hyde  Park;31  and  on  November  16, 
The  Ball32  A  fourth  play,  The  Arcadia,  probably 
belonging  likewise  to  this  year,  I  reserve  for  the  fol- 
lowing chapter.     Shirley's  only  publication  for  this 

26  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  232,  note. 

27  S.  R.,  iv,  447.     Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  409,  and  in  English  Drama, 
11,  234,  misprints  this  date  as  July  20  for  July  29. 

28  S.  R.,  iv,  215.  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  406,  gives  this  date  as  1630 
without  specifying  that  it  is  Old  Style. 

20  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Malone's  Shakspere,  1 82 1,  III,  232,  note. 

Ibid. 
■■■-  I  hid. 

[44] 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

year  was  Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  entered  in 
the  Stationers'  Register  for  W.  Cooke,  February 
9,  1631/2.33    Its  full  title  reads: 

Changes:  or,  Love  in  a  Maze.  A  Comedie,  As  it  was 
presented  at  the  Private  House  in  Salisbury  Court,  by  the 
Company  of  His  Majesties  Revels.     Written  by  lames 

Shirley,  Gent. Deserta  per  avia  dulcis  Raptat  Amor. 

London:  Printed  by  G.  P.  for  William  Cooke,  and  are  to 
be  sold  at  his  shop  neere  Furnivals  Inne  gate  in  Holborne, 
1632. 34 

Of  the  four  plays  belonging  to  this  year  1632,  one, 
The  Ball,  was  shortly  to  occasion  further  record.  On 
November  18,  1632,  two  days  after  it  was  licensed, 
Sir  Henry  Herbert,  Master  of  the  Revels,  made  this 
entry  in  his  office-book: 

In  the  play  of  The  Ball,  written  by  Sherley,  and  acted 
by  the  Queens  players,  ther  were  divers  personated  so 
naturally,  both  of  lords  and  others  of  the  court,  that  I 
took  it  ill,  and  would  have  forbidden  the  play,  but  that 
Biston  [Christopher  Beeston,  the  manager]  promiste 
many  things  which  I  found  faulte  withall  should  be  left 
out,  and  that  he  would  not  suffer  it  to  be  done  by  the  poett 
any  more,  who  deserves  to  be  punisht;  and  the  first  that 
offends  in  this  kind,  of  poets  or  players,  shall  be  sure  of 
publique  punishment.35 

33  S.  R.,  iv,  238. 

34  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

35  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  in,  231-232. 

[45] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

To  this  passage,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  recur  in  our 
critical  study  of  the  play  in  Chapter  IX. 

Having  now  considered  the  circumstances  of  Shir- 
ley's entrance  into  London,  and  having  recorded  the 
licensing  and  the  publication  of  the  works  of  his  first 
dramatic  period,  I  shall  devote  the  remainder  of 
this  chapter  to  a  discussion  of  the  identity  of  the  play 
licensed  as  The  Brothers,  November  4,  1626.  This 
work,  in  Fleay's  opinion,36  cannot  be  identical  with 
Shirley's  The  Brothers  of  1652,  published  as  one  of 
Six  New  Playes,  1653  ; 37  but  is  rather  to  be  identified 
with  the  tragicomedy  called  Dicke  of  Devonshire, 
which  Bullen,38  in  1883,  ascribed  to  Heywood.  Of 
Fleay's  conclusions  in  this  matter,  Schelling  has  re- 
cently remarked:  "There  seems  some  reason  for  this 
opinion."39  Later,  however,  he  declares:  "It  is  im- 
possible to  follow  Fleay  in  the  nice  distinctions  by 
which  he  transfers  the  title,  The  Brothers,  to  the 
anonymous  Dick  of  Devonshire,  and  identifies  Shir- 
ley's play  before  us  [The  Brothers  of  1652]  with  The 
Politic  Father,  licensed  for  the  King's  men  in 
1641."40  In  view  of  this  uncertainty  concerning  the 
identity  of  the  plays  in  question,  an  examination  of 

38  Fleay,  in  English  Drama,  II,  236-237,  and  in  A nglia,  VIII.,  405-406. 
37  In  this  collection,  the  joint  title-page  is  dated   1653;  but  of  the 
individual  title-pages,  all  but  the  last  are  dated  1652. 
Bullen,  Collection  of  Old  English  Plays,  II,  1-4. 
80  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  I,  293. 
<n  Ibid.,  11,  288. 

[46] 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

the  evidence  is  here  in  order.  To  readers  who  enjoy 
such  critical  investigations,  the  problem  presented 
will  appeal  as  one  of  the  most  fascinating  puzzles  of 
the  Shirley  canon;  to  others,  I  fear,  the  discussion 
must  seem  a  waste  of  time  and  printers'  ink. 


The  initial  link  in  Fleay's  long  argument,  is  to  show 
that  the  play  known  to  us  as  The  Politician*1  is  not 
the  play  licensed  as  The  Politique  Father,  May  26, 
1641.42  So  slight  is  the  argument  in  favor  of  their 
identity,  that  one  begrudges  the  space  necessary  to  its 
refutation;  yet  refuted  it  must  be,  if  The  Politique 
Father  is  to  be  identified  instead  with  The  Brothers 
of  1652.  Dyce  found  The  Politique  Father  licensed 
but,  under  that  title,  never  printed,  and  The  Politi- 
cian printed  but,  under  that  title,  never  licensed;  and, 
desiring  to  account  for  both,  he  jumped  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  two  were  one.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, the  burden  of  proof  is  wholly  upon  Dyce; 
but  all  that  he  offers  us  is  this : 

41  Works,  v,  89-176.  The  title-page  of  my  copy  reads  as  follows: 
"The  Polititian,  A  Tragedy.  Presented  at  Salisbury  Court  by  her 
Majesties  Servants;  Written  by  James  Shirley.  London.  Printed  for 
Humphrey  Moseley  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  at  the  Princes 
Armes  in  St.  Pauls  Church-yard.     1655" 

42  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  232,  note. 

C47] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Mr.  Gifford  observes  that  The  Politician  "does  not 
appear  to  have  been  licensed  by  the  Master  of  the 
Revels":  he  thinks  that  it  was  produced  not  later  than 
1639;  and  that  it  may  indeed  have  been  represented  while 
the  poet  was  in  Ireland.  I  feel  convinced,  however,  that 
the  following  entry  in  Sir  Henry  Herbert's  office-book, 
relates  to  this  tragedy:  "The  Politique  Father,  May  26, 
1 641":  we  have  already  seen  that  Shirley's  dramas  were 
not  always  printed  with  the  names  under  which  they  had 
been  licensed.  The  Politician  was  given  to  the  press  in 
1655,  as  Presented  at  Salisbury  Court  by  her  Majesties 
Servants.43 

Before  accepting  this  hypothesis,  we  may  justly  ask 
of  Dyce  three  things :  ( 1 )  that  his  hypothesis  shall 
best  account  for  the  fact  that  The  Politique  Father, 
although  licensed,  was,  under  that  title,  never  printed ; 
and  for  the  fact  that  The  Politician,  although 
printed,  was,  under  that  title,  never  licensed;  (2) 
that  the  title  of  the  licensed  play  shall  be  appropriate 
to  the  subject-matter  of  the  drama  published;  and 
(3)  that  the  hypothesis  proposed  shall  not  conflict 
with  known  facts  or  with  strong  probabilities. 

Tried  by  these  tests,  the  hypothesis  of  Dyce  fails  of 
establishment.  In  the  first  place,  to  assert  the  iden- 
tity of  The  Politique  Father  and  The  Politician  is 
not  the  best  way  to  account  for  the  fact  that  no  play 
of  the  former  title  has  been  published  and  no  play  of 

43  Dyce,  jn  Works,  I,  xxxviii-xxxix. 

£48] 


THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

the  latter  title  has  been  licensed.  Other  hypotheses 
are  quite  as  good.  Concerning  the  published  play 
we  might  assume,  for  example,  that  this  play,  al- 
though published  as  "Presented  ...  by  her  Majes- 
ties Servants,"  was  never  actually  licensed  or  pre- 
sented. In  1655,  both  Shirley  and  his  publisher 
might  well  have  been  in  ignorance  of  what  had  been 
done  with  the  manuscript  by  her  Majesty's  Servants 
during  Shirley's  absence  in  Ireland  fifteen  years  be- 
fore. Indeed  they  might  even— for  the  sake  of  better 
sales— have  ventured  a  false  statement  on  the  title- 
page:  in  1655  such  a  statement  would  pass  without 
detection.  Better  still,  we  might  assume  that  the  rea- 
son why  we  have  no  record  of  the  license  is  not  that 
the  play  was  never  licensed  in  due  form,  but  merely 
that  Malone,  by  some  oversight,  failed  to  transcribe 
the  license-record  from  the  now-lost  office-book:  this 
is  not  the  only  extant  play  of  Shirley  for  which  we 
lack  this  record.  Concerning  the  licensed  play,  The 
Politique  Father,  we  might  assume  either  that  the 
play  was  never  published,  or  better  (as  we  shall  see) 
that  it  is  to  be  identified  not  with  The  Politician  but 
with  the  play  published  as  The  Brothers  in  1652. 
In  his  letter  of  August  7,  1641,  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain, the  Earl  of  Essex,  named  as  the  property  of  the 
King's  men  three  plays  by  Shirley:  "The  doubtfull 

[49] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

heire.  The  Imposture.  .  .  .  The  Brothers."**  If, 
by  August  7,  1641,  the  name  of  the  play  licensed  as 
Rosania,  June  1,  1640,  had  been  changed  by  its  author 
or  by  its  actors  to  The  Doubtful  Heir,  surely  there 
was  no  reason  why  the  play  licensed  as  The  Politique 
Father,  May  26,  1641,  should  not,  by  August  7,  1641, 
become  The  Brothers.  Since  these  various  supposi- 
tions are  quite  as  adequate  as  is  the  hypothesis  of 
Dyce,  the  mere  fact  that  The  Politique  Father  was 
licensed  but,  under  that  title,  never  printed,  and  that 
The  Politician  was  printed  but,  under  that  title, 
never  licensed,  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  the  two  iden- 
tical. 

In  the  second  place,  the  title  of  the  play  known  to 
us  from  the  license-record  is  not  appropriate  to  the 
subject-matter  of  the  published  drama.  Gotharus, 
the  politician,  proves  to  be  neither  "politique"  nor  a 
"father";  the  credulous  King  of  Norway,  father  of 
Prince  Turgesius,  is  even  less  politic  than  his  min- 
ister; and  as  for  Count  Altomarus,  father  of  Haral- 
dus,  he  is  politic  only  in  the  fact  that  he  had  the 
foresight  to  die  before  the  action  of  Shirley's  play 
begins.  Moreover,  in  the  "Small  Characters  of  the 
Persons"  prefixed  to  The  Politician,  no  one  of  the 
characters  is  described  as  "politique,"  as  might  be 

41  The  letter  is  reprinted  in  full  by  E.  K.  Chambers  in  The  Malone 
Society  Collections,  Parts  IV  &  V,  pp.  364-369. 

[SO] 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

expected  were  The  Politician  but  a  new  name  for 
The  Politique  Father.  In  short,  no  appropriateness 
of  title  to  material  indicates  that  the  play  licensed  as 
The  Politique  Father  is  the  play  that  has  come  down 
to  us  as  The  Politician. 

And  in  the  third  place,  Dyce's  hypothesis  must  be 
accepted,  if  at  all,  in  the  face  of  the  strong  probability 
that  the  plays  he  would  identify  belonged  to  rival 
companies.  From  the  title-page  of  The  Politician, 
we  know  that  it  was  acted  by  the  Queen's  men :  "Pre- 
sented at  Salisbury  Court  by  her  Majesties  Servants." 
From  the  date  of  the  licensing  of  The  Politique  Fa- 
ther, we  can  be  all  but  certain  that  the  play  was 
licensed  for  the  King's  men.  Malone's  extracts  from 
the  lost  office-book  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels  do  not 
specify  for  what  companies  the  plays  were  licensed. 
The  title-pages  of  the  printed  plays,  however,  tell  us 
by  what  company  each  play  was  acted:  from  these 
title-pages  we  know  that,  before  Shirley  went  to  Ire- 
land, he  wrote,  with  but  a  single  exception45  (unless 
The  Brothers  be  a  second),  for  the  Queen's  men  at 
the  private  house  in  Drury  Lane;46  that  during  his 
absence  in  Ireland,  his  new  plays  were  presented  in 

45  The  exception  is  Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  "presented  at  the 
Private  House  in  Salisbury  Court  by  the  Company  of  His  Majesties 
Revels."  Note  that  this  is  not  the  company  of  the  "King's  men,"  i.e., 
"his  Majesties  Servants." 

46  See  the  full  title-pages  in  the  Bibliography. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

London  by  the  new  company  of  Queen's  men  at  Salis- 
bury Court;47  and  that  after  his  return,  he  wrote 
without  exception  (unless  it  be  this  Politique  Father) 
for  the  King's  men.4S  In  the  absence,  therefore,  of 
evidence  to  the  contrary,  we  must  deem  it  all  but  cer- 
tain that  The  Politique  Father,  licensed  after  his 
return  from  Dublin,  was  acted,  like  every  other  play 
of  Shirley's  presented  subsequent  to  his  return,  by  his 
Majesty's  Servants.  How  then  stands  our  argu- 
ment? From  the  title-page  of  The  Politician,  we 
know  that  it  was  acted  by  the  Queen's  men.  From 
the  date  of  The  Politique  Father,  we  deem  it  all  but 
certain  that  that  play  was  licensed  for  the  King's  men. 
If  this  be  so,  the  hypothesis  of  Dyce  that  the  two 
plays  are  identical,  is  highly  improbable. 

But  perhaps  it  may  be  objected  that  the  title-page 
of  The  Politician  is  incorrect:  that  this  drama  was 
not,  in  reality,  "Presented  at  Salisbury  Court  by  her 
Majesties  Servants."  Even  then,  the  hypothesis  of 
Dyce  would  be  improbable.  We  have  established  the 
strong  probability  that  The  Politique  Father  was  li- 
censed for  the  King's  men.  We  know  from  the  title- 
page  of  The  Cardinal,  that  that  tragedy  was  acted  by 
the  same  company.49     We  know  further,  that  The 

17  See  the  full  title-pages  in  the  Bibliography. 
1    Ibid. 

'•'■'  "The  Cardinal ,  A  Trac/edie,  As  It  teas  acted  at  the  private  House 
in  Black  Fryers  .  .   .   ,"  i.  c.,  by  the  King's  men. 

OH 


THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Politique  Father,  whatever  its  identity,  antedates  The 
Cardinal;  for  the  former  was  licensed  May  26,  1641, 
and  the  latter  on  November  25  of  the  same  year.50 
But  The  Cardinal  is  expressly  called,  in  its  epilogue, 
the  first  tragedy  that  Shirley  wrote  for  the  King's 
men: 

.   .   .   the  Play  is  a  Tragedy, 
The  first  that  ever  he  compos'd  for  us.51 

Therefore,  The  Politique  Father,  which  antedates  it, 
cannot  be  a  tragedy/'2  The  Politician,  however,  is  a 
tragedy  not  only  in  its  title  but  in  fact.53  For  this 
second  reason,  therefore,  The  Politique  Father — pro- 
vided always  that  it  was  acted,  as  its  date  indicates, 
by  the  King's  men— cannot  be,  as  Dyce  assumed,  The 
Politician. 

In  short,  the  hypothesis  of  Dyce  survives  no  one  of 
the  tests  we  have  applied  to  it.  It  does  not  best  ac- 
count for  the  known  facts  concerning  The  Politique 
Father  and  The  Politician:  other  hypotheses  prove  as 
good  or  better.  It  ignores  the  fact  that  the  title  of 
The  Politique  Father  is  in  no  wise  appropriate  to  the 
subject-matter  of  The  Politician.     It  conflicts  with 

50  Malone's  Shakspere,  1 821,  III,  232,  note. 

51  The  Cardinal,  1652,  p.  70;  or  Works,  v,  352. 

52  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II,  246. 

53  The  Polititian,  A  Tragedy  .  .  .  1655. 

[53] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

the  probabilities  (which  are  all  but  certainties)  that 
the  two  plays  were  one  a  comedy  and  the  other  a  trag- 
edy, and  that  they  belonged  to  rival  companies.  Un- 
der these  circumstances,  the  hypothesis  of  Dyce  may 
be  rejected. 


II 


No  longer  hampered  by  the  supposition  that  the  play 
published  as  The  Politician  in  1655  is  to  be  identi- 
fied, as  Dyce  assumed,54  with  the  play  licensed  as  The 
Politique  Father  in  1641,  we  are  now  free  to  proceed 
to  our  second  point,  namely:  that  the  play  published 
as  The  Brothers  in  1652  is  identical  with  The  Poli- 
tique Father  of  1641  rather  than  with  the  play  li- 
censed as  The  Brothers  in  1626. 

This  proposition  is  plausible  from  the  start.  We 
know  of  no  instance  in  which  a  play  of  Shirley  was 
renamed  during  presentation  by  the  Queen's  men  of 
Salisbury  Court;  but  we  do  know  that  Rosania  was 
renamed  during  presentation  by  the  King's  men  of 
Black  Friars.  Surely,  then,  we  may  as  reasonably 
assume  that  The  Politique  Father  was  a  play  of  the 
King's  men  ultimately  renamed  The  Brothers,  as  that 
it  was  a  play  of  the  Queen's  men  ultimately  renamed 

54  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  xxxviii. 

[54] 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

The  Politician.  Moreover,  although,  as  we  have 
noted,  the  title  The  Politique  Father  fits  ill  with  the 
subject-matter  of  The  Politician,  it  fits  excellently 
with  the  story  of  The  Brothers;  for  Don  Ramyres5 
proves  exceeding  "politique1'  in  marrying  his  sons  to 
best  advantage.  All  this  proves  nothing;  but  it  goes 
to  show  that,  if  there  be  arguments  to  support  our 
proposition,  the  field  is  open. 

From  possibility,  therefore,  we  proceed  to  proba- 
bility: three  arguments  make  probable  the  change  of 
title.  In  the  first  place,  The  Brothers  of  1652  was 
published  as  one  of  a  collection  of  which  the  joint 
title  ran: 

Six  New  Playes,  Viz.  The  Brothers.  Sisters.  Doubtfull 
Heir.  Imposture.  Cardinall.  Court  Secret.  The  Five 
first  were  acted  at  the  Private  House  in  Black  Fryers  with 
great  Applause.  The  last  was  never  Acted.  All  Written 
by  James  Shirley.  Never  printed  before.  London,  .  .  . 
1653.56 

Of  these  six  plays,  all  with  the  possible  exception  of 
The  Brothers  were  produced  by  Shirley  in  the  years 

55  Fleay  gives  the  title  a  different  application:  that  the  "politique 
father"  is  not  Don  Ramyres  but  Don  Carlos.  His  interpretation, 
however,  is  based  solely  upon  the  chance  comment  of  Francisco  to  Don 
Carlos,  in  Act  I,  scene  i:  "You  show  a  provident  father."  Aside  from 
the  difference  between  "provident"  and  "politique,"  the  facts  of  the 
play  make  Fleay's  application  most  unlikely:  Don  Carlos  is  anything 
but  politic.     See,  however,  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II,  246. 

56  From  the  title-page  of  the  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  present 
writer. 

1 5  51 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

1 640-1 642 :  for  of  four  we  know  the  license-date,  and 
for  the  fifth  we  have  Shirley's  own  statement  that  "it 
happened  to  receive  birth  when  the  stage  was  inter- 
dicted,"57 that  is,  after  the  closing  of  the  theaters  in 
1642.  In  view  of  these  facts,  is  it  probable  that  Shir- 
ley would  include,  and  would  place  first,  in  this  com- 
pany of  New  Playes,  a  work  that  had  remained  un- 
published for  nearly  a  generation? 

In  the  second  place,  one  bit  of  internal  evidence 
relates  The  Brothers  of  1652  with  the  period  of  The 
Politique  Father,  1641,  rather  than  with  that  of  The 
Brothers  of  1626.  When  The  Brothers  of  1652  was 
acted,  there  was,  presumably,  some  special  meaning 
in  the  prologue's  line : 


You're  all  betray'd  here  to  a  Spanish  plot, 


58 


When  The  Politique  Father  was  acted  in  1641,  no 
allusion  could  have  been  more  timely  than  one  to  the 
king's  Spanish  plot  of  that  year— his  plot  to  give 
Spain  a  part  of  the  Irish  army.59  Unless  we  assume 
that  this  passage  is  a  late  interpolation,  we  must  see 
in  it  an  additional  argument  for  supposing  that  the 
play  published  as  The  Brothers  in  1652  was  acted 
about  the  year  1641  —  the  date  when  The  Politique 

67  Dedication  of  The  Court  Secret,  in  Works,  v,  428. 

68  Prologue  to  The  Brothers,  in  Works,  I,  191. 

::'  Fleay,  in  Antjlia,  VIII,  410;  and  in  English  Drama,  II,  246. 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Father  was  licensed— or  even  for  concluding  the  two 
plays  identical. 

In  the  third  place,  the  play  published  as  The 
Brothers  in  1652,  is  described  on  its  individual  title- 
page  and  on  the  joint  title-page  of  Six  New  Playes, 
1653,  of  which  it  formed  a  part,  as  "acted  at  the  Pri- 
vate House  in  Black  Fryers,"60  that  is,  by  the  King's 
men,  for  whom  Shirley  began  writing  in  1640.  This 
circumstance  all  but  negatives  the  assumption  that 
the  play  published  in  1652  is  the  play  licensed  under 
the  same  name  in  1626;  for,  previous  to  1640,  we 
know  of  but  one  instance  in  which  Shirley  wrote  for 
any  company  other  than  the  Queen's  men,  and  in  that 
instance61  he  wrote  not  for  the  King's  men  at  Black 
Friars  but  for  the  Company  of  his  Majesty's  Revels 
at  Salisbury  Court.62  That  Shirley  should  have  writ- 
ten one  play  for  the  King's  men  while  he  was  in  the 
employ  of  the  Queen's  men,  may  not  be  impossible, 
but  is  at  least  untimely.  We  must  conclude  rather 
that,  since  the  play  published  as   The  Brothers  in 

60  From  the  title-pages  of  the  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  present 
writer. 

61  Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze. 

62  One  play,  Love  Tricks,  or  The  School  of  Complement,  which 
antedates  by  a  few  weeks  the  organization  of  her  Majesty's  Servants, 
was  originally  acted  by  the  Lady  Elizabeth's  men;  but  appears  to  have 
been  transferred  to  the  repertoire  of  the  new  company  by  Christopher 
Beeston  when  the  Queen's  men,  upon  their  organization,  succeeded 
to  the  occupancy  of  the  Phoenix  in  Drury  Lane.  See  Murray,  English 
Dramatic  Companies,  I,  259. 

[571] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

1652  was  "acted  at  the  Private  House  in  Black 
Fryers,"  it  was  acted  not  in  1626  but  during  the 
period  from  1640  to  1642.  This  argument  points  not 
to  The  Brothers  of  1626  but  to  The  Politique  Father 
of  1641. 

These  three  arguments— that  The  Brothers  of  1652 
was  published  as  the  first  of  six  "new"  plays,  that  it 
contains  a  line  best  explained  as  an  allusion  to  the 
Spanish  plot  of  1641,  and  that  it  was  acted  by  the 
King's  men,  for  whom,  so  far  as  we  know,  Shirley 
began  writing  in  1640— support  the  probability  that 
the  play  published  as  The  Brothers  in  1652  is  identi- 
cal with  the  play  licensed  as  The  Politique  Father  in 
1641  rather  than  with  the  play  licensed  as  The 
Brothers  in  1626.  Probability,  however,  is  not  cer- 
tainty. The  certainty— or  approximation  to  certainty 
—  comes  rather  from  two  considerations  still  to  be 
presented. 

The  first  of  these  was  advanced  thirteen  years  ago, 
by  Nissen.63  In  the  dedication  of  The  Brothers  of 
1652,  Shirley,  addressing  Thomas  Stanley,  Esq., 
writes: 

This  composition,  .  .  .  after  its  birth,  had  in  my 
thoughts  a  dedication  to  your  name.  .  .  .  You  were 
pleased  to  grace  it  with  your  fair  opinion,  when  it  was 
represented.   .   .   .°4 

83  Nissen,  p.  13,  note  6. 

04  Dedication  to  The  Brothers,  in  Works,  I,  189. 

C58D 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

That  Shirley  should  have  written  thus  of  The  Bro- 
thers of  1626  is  most  improbable;  for,  as  Thomas 
Stanley  was  but  one  year  old  in  1626,  he  would  scarcely 
have  been,  even  in  Shirley's  thoughts,  the  recipient 
of  a  dedication,  and  certainly  would  not  have  graced 
the  drama  with  his  fair  opinion.  If,  however,  con- 
tinues Nissen,  The  Brothers  of  1652  is  really,  as 
Fleay  maintains,  The  Politique  Father  of  1641,  then 
the  dedication  to  Thomas  Stanley,  Esq.,  would  be 
wholly  appropriate;  for  Stanley  had  entered  the  uni- 
versity in  1639. 

This  argument  is  conclusive  in  so  far  as  it  concerns 
the  relation  of  The  Brothers  of  1652  to  The  Brothers 
of  1626;  but  it  is  not  conclusive  with  respect  to  the 
relation  of  The  Brothers  of  1652  to  The  Politique 
Father  of  1641.  Their  identity,  however,  appears  to 
be  conclusively  established  by  a  bit  of  evidence  left 
us  by  Shirley's  publisher,  Humphrey  Moseley.  In 
the  library  of  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq.,64a  in  a  cata- 


64a  In  the  spring  of  191 1,  while  this  monograph  was  in  preparation, 
the  library  of  Mr.  Hoe  was  placed  on  exhibition  by  the  Anderson 
Auction  Company  of  New  York  City,  preparatory  to  the  sale  that 
began  on  April  24.  Among  the  books  exhibited  was  perhaps  the  most 
nearly  complete  collection  of  the  works  of  Shirley — especially  of  first 
editions — that  has  ever  been  assembled  in  America;  and  to  this  collec- 
tion, through  the  courtesy  of  the  company,  the  writer  of  this  mono- 
graph was  given  access,  with  opportunity  for  leisurely  and  detailed 
examination.  For  courtesies  then  extended  to  him,  he  takes  this 
opportunity  to  thank  the  company  and  its  representatives,  especially 
Mr.  E.  F.  Hanaburgh. 

[59] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

logue  bound  with  Shirley's  Six  New  Playes  of  1653, 
occurs  this  advertisement: 

These  Books  I  have  now  in  the  Presse, 
ready  to  come  forth. 

130.     Six  new  Playes,  viz. 

BROTHERS. 
SISTERS. 
Thc  .  DOUBTFUL  HEIR. 
IMPOSTURE. 
CARDINALL. 
COURT  SECRET. 

By  James  Shirley,  Gent,  in  8°.  Being  all 
that  ever  the  Author  made  for  the  Private 
house  in  Black-Fryers. 

"Being  all  that  ever  the  Author  made  for  the  Private 
house  in  Black-Fryers":  if  these  indeed  be  "all,"  then 
must  one  of  these  six  be  the  play  licensed  as  The  Pol- 
itique Father — for  that  Shirley  wrote  The  Politique 
Father  for  any  but  the  King's  men,  is  unlikely.  By  a 
process  of  elimination,  we  can  account  for  every  play 
in  the  list  except  the  first:  The  Court  Secret  we  know 
was  never  acted;  The  Doubtful  Heir  was  licensed  as 
Rosania,  the  name  of  its  heroine;  The  Sisters,  The 
Imposture,  and  The  Cardinal  were  licensed  under 
the  names  by  which  we  know  them.  Only  The  Bro- 
thers remains  to  be  accounted  for  among  the  pub- 
lished plays;  only  The  Politique  Father  among  the 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

dramas  licensed.  If  Moseley,  publishing  in  Shirley's 
lifetime,  told  the  truth  — if  these  six  plays  be  "all"  — 
and  if,  as  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  The  Pol- 
itique Father  was  licensed  for  the  King's  men:  then 
must  The  Politique  Father  be  The  Brothers  of  1652. 

For  these  five  reasons,  then — that  The  Brothers  of 
1652  was  published  as  the  first  of  six  "new"  plays; 
that  it  contains  what  appears  to  be  an  allusion  to  the 
Spanish  plot  of  1641 ;  that  it  was  acted  by  the  King's 
men,  for  whom  we  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that 
Shirley  wrote  only  from  1640  to  1642;  that  it  was 
dedicated  to  Thomas  Stanley,  Esq.,  who  was  but  one 
year  old  in  1626,  but  who  entered  the  university  in 
1639;  and  that  Moseley's  advertisement  eliminates 
all  possibilities  save  Fleay's  conclusion— for  these  five 
reasons,  I  agree  with  Fleay  that  The  Brothers  of  1652 
is  to  be  identified  not  with  The  Brothers  of  1626  but 
with  The  Politique  Father  of  1641. 

Two  of  Fleay's  propositions  we  have  now  consid- 
ered :  ( 1 )  that  The  Politique  Father  is  not  The  Poli- 
tician; and  (2)  that  The  Brothers  of  1652  is  not  The 
Brothers  of  1626  but  is  rather  The  Politique  Father. 
Are  these  two  propositions  now  established?  As  we 
review  our  discussion,  we  note  that  a  majority  of  our 
strongest  arguments  in  support  of  both  propositions 
involve  the  premise  that  Shirley  in  no  instance  wrote 
for  the  King's  men  previous  to  his  return  from  Ire- 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

land,  and  that  he  in  no  instance  wrote  for  the  Queen's 
men  after  his  return.  This  premise  we  cannot  posi- 
tively affirm ;  for  we  no  longer  possess  the  office-book 
of  the  Master  of  the  Revels;  and  an  inference  based 
solely  upon  the  title-pages  now  extant  establishes  only 
a  reasonable  presumption.  When,  however,  we  com- 
bine the  arguments  that  involve  this  premise,  with 
arguments  that  are  not  thus  brought  in  doubt,  we 
have,  I  believe,  sufficient  ground  for  accepting 
Fleay's  conclusions.6^ 

III 

My  acceptance,  however,  applies  only  to  Fleay's  first 
and  second  propositions.  His  third  proposition  — 
that  the  play  licensed  as  The  Brothers  in  1626  is  to  be 
identified  with  the  play  which  Bullen,  in  1883,  pub- 

64b  On  December  10,  1914,  while  the  second  proof-sheets  of  this  book 
were  still  in  my  possession,  I  had  the  pleasure  of  receiving  from  Dr. 
Robert  Stanley  Forsythe  a  copy  of  his  able  work  The  Relations  of 
Shirley's  Plays  to  the  Elizabethan  Drama,  fresh  from  the  press.  Nat- 
urally, I  read  with  much  attention  the  section  (pages  173-177)  in 
which  Dr.  Forsythe  endeavors  to  maintain  the  identity  of  The  Broth- 
ers of  1626  with  The  Brothers  of  1652,  and  the  identity  of  The  Poli- 
tique Father  with  The  Politician.  Should  he  convince  the  world  that  I 
am  wrong  in  accepting  Fleay's  conclusions,  he  will  but  strengthen  the 
principal  thesis  of  my  study,  that  Shirley,  beginning  as  a  realist,  ended 
his  career  as  a  romanticist;  for  Dr.  Forsythe  would  transfer  this 
comedy  of  manners,  The  Brothers,  from  Shirley's  third  period — a 
period  of  romantic  plays — to  his  first  period,  a  period  of  realism,  to 
which,  for  the  sake  of  my  thesis,  I  gladly  would  assign  it.  Unfor- 
tunately for  me,  however,  I  find  Dr.  Forsythe's  arguments,  on  the 
points  on  which  we  differ,  unconvincing.  I  am  letting  my  chapter 
stand,  therefore,  just  as  it  was  before  I  saw  his  book. 

[623 


THE   FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

lished  under  the  title  Dicke  of  Devonshire65  —  im- 
presses me  as  much  less  certain.  The  arguments 
which  tend  to  associate  Dicke  of  Devonshire  with  the 
year  1626,  seem  to  me  not  so  conclusive  as  Fleay 
assumes;  and  then,  even  if  we  grant  that  Dicke  of 
Devonshire  was  composed  in  1626,  we  still  lack  defi- 
nite grounds  for  identifying  it  with  Shirley's  play 
The  Brothers. 

As  to  the  date  of  Dicke  of  Devonshire,  one  point 
must  instantly  be  granted :  that  the  play  was  com- 
posed not  earlier  than  July  18,  1626;  for  so  much  of 
the  play  as  relates  to  Richard  Pike,  or  Peeke,  of 
Tavistock,  is  based  upon  a  pamphlet  entered  on  that 
day  in  the  Stationers'  Register: 

A  booke  cal[le]d  Three  to  one  being  and  [sic]  Eng- 
lish Spanish  combatt  Performed  by  a  westerne  man  of 
Tavestocke  in  Denon:  with  an  English  quarter  staff e 
against  Three  Spanish  Rapiers  and  Ponyards  at  Sherres 
[i.e.,  Xeres]  in  Spayne  the  75  of  Nouember  162 5.66 

65  Bullen,  A  Collection  of  Old  English  Plays,  II,  1-99;  from  Eg. 
MS.  1994. 

60  S.  R.,  IV,  125.  The  title-page  of  the  pamphlet,  as  reprinted  in 
Arber's  English  Garner,  I,  621-639,  reads  thus:  Three  to  One.  Being 
an  English-Spanish  combat  performed  by  a  Western  Gentleman  of 
Tavistock  in  Devonshire,  with  an  English  quarterstaff,  against  three 
Spaniards  [at  once]  with  rapiers  and  poniards;  at  Sherries  [Xeres] 
in  Spain,  the  15th  day  of  November,  1625:  in  the  presence  of  Dukes, 
Condes,  Marquises,  and  other  great  Dons  of  Spain;  being  the  Council 
of  War.  The  author  of  this  book,  and  the  actor  in  this  encounter; 
i?[ichard]  Peeke.  Printed  at  London  for  I.  T.  and  are  to  be  sold  at 
his  shop,     [n.d.] 

L*3l 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

That  the  play  was  written  not  later  than  the  close  of 
1626,  is  indicated — possibly — by  a  passage  in  the  play 
itself.  In  a  conversation  concerning  the  Spanish  Ar- 
mada, in  Act  I,  scene  ii,  the  second  merchant  says  to 
the  first: 

.   .   .   Stay;  Eighty  Eight, — 
Thirty  eight  yeares  agoe;  much  about  then 
Came  I  into  the  world.— Well,  sir,  this  fleete?67 

Thirty-eight  years  added  to  1588  place  this  conversa- 
tion definitely  in  the  year  1626;  and  Shirley's  The 
Brothers  was  licensed  November  4,  1626.  But  does 
the  passage  prove  that  Dicke  of  Devonshire  was  com- 
posed in  1626?  May  it  not  rather  prove  that  the 
dramatist,  writing  perhaps  years  later,  thought  of  the 
events  of  his  play  as  occurring  in  or  about  the  year 
1626?  To  this  conclusion,  some  support  is  given  by 
a  passage  in  Act  III,  scene  i.  The  hero,  in  his  pam- 
phlet, speaking  of  an  attempt  to  ransom  him,  says 
only:  "The  town,  thinking  me  to  be  a  better  prize 
than  indeed  I  was,  denied  me,  and  would  not  part 
from  me."68  In  the  play,  however,  we  find  the  fol- 
lowing dialogue: 

Jewell:  .  .  .  Sure  they  hold  him   for  some  great 
nohle  purchace. 

67  Dicke  of  Devonshire,  in  Bullen's  Collection  of  Old  English  Plays, 
II,  16. 

68  Three  to  One,  in  Arber's  English  Garner,  I,  631. 

[643 


THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Secretary:  A  Barronet  at  least,  one  of  the  lusty 
blood,  Captaine. 

Captaine  :  Or  perhaps,  Mr.  Secretary,  some  remark- 
able Commonwealths  man,  a  pollitician  in  Government.69 

Is  this  reference  to  "some  remarkable  Common- 
wealths man,  a  pollitician  in  Government"  likely  to 
occur  so  early  as  1626? 

But  even  if  we  grant  that  Dicke  of  Devonshire  was 
composed  in  1626,  the  year  when  The  Brothers  was 
licensed  for  presentation,  this  does  not  prove  the  two 
identical.  If  we  knew  that  Dicke  of  Devonshire 
were  Shirley's,  then  the  coincidence  of  date  would 
be  significant.  If  we  possessed  the  office-book  of  the 
Master  of  the  Revels,  and  by  it  could  account  for  every 
play  of  1626  except  The  Brothers,  then  we  might 
infer  that  The  Brothers  is  Dicke  of  Devonshire.  But 
no  such  process  of  elimination  is  possible.  We  do  not 
know  that  Shirley  wrote  Dicke  of  Devonshire.  We 
do  not  know  that  it  may  not  have  been  licensed  by 
another  dramatist  under  some  title  now  lost  with  the 
lost  office-book.  For  that  matter,  we  cannot  be  sure 
that  it  ever  was  either  licensed  or  presented.  We 
know  only  that  it  has  survived  as  "Eg.  MS.  1994." 

Even,  then,  if  we  grant  that  Dicke  of  Devonshire 
was  composed  in  1626,  we  still  need  evidence  to  con- 
nect the  play  with  Shirley's  The  Brothers.    And  on 

69  Dicke  of  Devonshire,  in  Bullen's  Collection,  II,  45. 


TAMES   SHIRLEY.   DRAMATIST 

this  point,  the  evidence  is  not  conclusive.  The  plot, 
indeed,  tits  well  enough  the  title  of  The  Brothers;  for 
so  much  of  the  play  as  does  not  concern  Richard  Pike, 
irils  with  the  relations  of  Manuel  and  Henrico,  sons 
of  Don  Pedro  Gusman.  But  to  how  many  plots  is 
such  a  title  applicable!  Again,  as  Fleay  has  pointed 
out.  Dicke  of  Devonshire  "is  expressly  called  (near 
the  end  I  'the  story  of  Two  Brothers.'  ":70 

Macada.      Letters  shall  forthwith  fly  into  Madrid 
To  tell  the  King  the  storyes  of  Two  Brothers. 
Worthy  the  Courtiers  reading. :: 

But  what  does  this  prove?  Even  in  a  single  year,  how 
many  dramas  might  offer  such  a  phrase?  With  al- 
most as  much  reason  might  we  identify  Shirley's  lost 
play  Look  to  the  Lady,  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Reg- 
ister. March  n.  1639  40. :-  with  the  play  published 
as  The  Politician;  for  that  very  phrase.  "Look  to  the 
Lady!"  occurs  in  The  Politician,  Act  v.  scene  ii.73 
Clearly,  the  mere  presence  of  the  words  "the  storyes 
of  Two  Brothers"  in  Dicke  of  Devonshire,  is  no  proof 
of  its  identity  with  Shirley's  The  Brothers  of  1626. 
Again,  how  do  those  critics  who  suppose  our  dram- 
-t  a  Roman  Catholic,  reconcile  the  anti-Romanist 

T*  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II.  236-237:  cf.  A -.    .:i,  vm.  406. 

In  Bullen's  Collection,  11.  99. 

The  Politician  rks,  v.  17a 


THE   FIRST  DR.-  IC  PERIOD 

speeches  in  this  play  with  the  allr_.  1  relig  m- 

pathies  of  Shirley?     Would  sc   recen:  a  c  to 

Catholicism    permit   his    here     .    rn    for   dram.: 
effect,  to  scorn  the  sacrament  of  confess 
Dicke  ::  Devonshire  in  Act       »;er.e  .. : "*    T 
that  the  e::r::    ;  c  bis  also  in  the  pamphlet  on  f 
the  play  is  based   isn  t  a  sufficient  ans 

As  :::  the  style  of  thu  .  I  find  in  it  I 

ambles    Shirley's.  ;      :::    :?    :h;  ::".- 

cerns  Richard  Pike,  it  follow  —    ;     sel]   thest 
of  the  pamphlet  paragraph  by  paragraph,  that  the 
playwright's  style  is     ist  in  that  ::  the       g  Foi 

the  rest— the  port.:::?  dealing  ■    th  Manuel,  Her.:  : 
and  Eleonora — much  oi  it  is  ink  verse  not  un- 

worthy of  Shirley  in  his  lesser  works,  yet  in  n;       sc 
marked  by  anything  peculiar  to  our  dramatist 
poetic  atmosphere  usually  be     lging  to  the  :    na 
plays  of  Shirley.  I  do  not  £  Dickt     }  De% 

shire . 

In  short,   although   we   cannot,   in  this     istanct 
prove   beyond   question   that   Fleay's    hypothesis   is 
wrong,  we  .ire  quite  as  fai  from  proving  that  his  hy- 
pothesis is  right    The  argument  base  I     I  the  plot  >1 
Dicke  .--'  Devonshire  and  on  the  allege  as     i  to 

the  title  in  the  license-list,  is  of  little      -   ght:  "s: 

"*  In  Bu!len"s  n,  70-7 

"In  Arber's  Gm  -  -633 

[673 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

of  Two  Brothers"  occur  too  often  in  this  world  to  be 
distinctive.  The  anti-Romanist  speeches  in  Dicke 
of  Devonshire  ill  agree  with  Shirley's  supposed  con- 
version to  Catholicism.  The  style  of  the  play  has  not 
been  unmistakably  associated  with  the  style  of  Shir- 
ley. And,  finally,  as  to  the  date  of  the  two  plays, 
although  Dicke  of  Devonshire  cannot  have  been  writ- 
ten earlier  than  the  year  of  the  licensing  of  The  Bro- 
thers, not  only  could  it  have  been  written  later,  but 
the  seeming  allusion  to  the  Commonwealth  makes  a 
later  date  more  probable.  For  these  four  reasons,  I 
must  decline  to  receive  Dicke  of  Devonshire  into  the 
Shirley  canon,  and  must  be  content  to  assume  that 
The  Brothers  of  1626  was  never  published.  But  that 
Fleay  is  right  in  assuming  that  The  Politique  Father 
of  1 64 1  is  to  be  identified  not  with  The  Politician  but 
with  The  Brothers  of  1652,  I  hold  to  be  not  only 
probable  but  well-nigh  certain. 

To  sum  up,  then,  our  record  of  Shirley  from  1625 
to  1632,  what  have  we  determined?  In  the  first  place, 
we  have  recognized  that  the  record  of  the  christening 
of  "Mathias,  sonne  of  Mr.  James  Shurley,  gentle- 
man," at  St.  Giles,  Cripplegate,  February  26,  1624/5, 
must  refer  to  the  Mathias  mentioned  in  the  will  of 
the  dramatist  as  his  "eldest  son" ;  and  upon  this  recog- 
nition we  have  based  the  inference  that,  on  or  before 
this  date,  James  Shirley  had  probably  taken  up  his 

C68] 


THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

residence  in  London.  In  the  second  place,  we  have 
noted  the  dates  of  the  licensing  of  Love  Tricks  with 
Complements  and  The  Maid's  Revenge;  of  the  prob- 
able presentation  of  The  Wedding;  and  of  the  licens- 
ing of  The  Brothers,  The  Witty  Fair  One,  The  Faith- 
ful Servant,  The  Traitor,  The  Duke,  Love's  Cruelty, 
The  Changes,  Hyde  Park,  and  The  Ball;  and  we 
have  noted  the  dates  of  the  publication,  or  of  the  entry 
for  publication,  of  The  Wedding,  The  Grateful  Ser- 
vant ( The  Faithful  Servant) ,  The  School  of  Comple- 
ment (Love  Tricks),  and  Changes,  or  Love  in  a 
Maze.  And  finally,  we  have  shown— conclusively, 
I  trust — that  the  play  licensed  as  The  Brothers  in 
1626  is  to  be  identified  neither  with  the  play  pub- 
lished under  that  title  in  1652  nor  with  that  published 
in  1883  as  Dicke  of  Devonshire.  Upon  this  chronol- 
ogy, we  may  safely,  in  Chapters  VI  to  IX,  base  our 
inferences  concerning  the  development  of  Shirley 
during  his  first  dramatic  period. 


[69: 


CHAPTER  III 

SHIRLEY'S  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

i 632-1 636 

N  The  Arcadia  of  Shirley,  Act  III,  scene  i,1 
Thumb,  the  miller,  protesting  against  a  rebel 
plot,  declares: 

We  met  together  to  drink  in  honour  of  the  king's 
birthday,  and  though  we  have  tickled  the  cannikins,  let  us 
be  merry  and  wise,  that's  my  opinion;  no  treason,  the 
king  is  an  honest  gentleman,  and  so  is  the  queen.2 

A  moment  later,  the  discussion  is  interrupted  by  the 
arrival  of  the  king  himself.  In  the  embarrassment 
that  results,  Thumb  makes  himself  the  spokesman: 

King,  by  your  leave,— Which  is  the  king?  my  eyes  twin- 
kle— We  have  been  playing  the  good  fellows  to  celebrate 
your  majestical  birthday;  will  your  grace  see  a  song?3 

1  Not  Act  in,  scene  ii,  as  Fleay  has  it,  in  his  English  Drama,  II,  239. 
His  error  is  occasioned  by  the  misprint  in  the  running  title  in  Works. 
VI,  205. 

2  Works,  vi,  201-202.  8  Ibid.,  205. 

[>] 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

Now  these  two  references  to  the  king's  birthday  have 
no  bearing  whatever  upon  the  action;  nor  is  there  in 
the  play  good  reason  why  Thumb  should  doubt  the 
identity  of  the  king,  for  the  king's  retinue,  at  the  mo- 
ment, consists  solely  of  his  queen,  his  daughter,  and 
a  prince  disguised  as  an  amazon.  Evidently,  we 
must  seek,  for  these  passages,  an  external  explanation ; 
and  this  explanation  is  found  in  the  theory  advanced 
by  Fleay,  that  Shirley's  Arcadia  was  first  presented 
at  court  on  the  birthday  of  King  Charles.  This  would 
account  for  the  references  to  "your  majestical  birth- 
day"; it  would  account  also  for  Thumb's  uncer- 
tainty. Evidently  he  addressed  his  second  speech  not 
to  King  Basilius  but  to  King  Charles.  And  this 
theory  that  The  Arcadia  was  a  play  written  for  the 
court,  would  account  also  for  the  fact  that  it  appears 
never  to  have  been  licensed  by  Sir  Henry  Herbert. 
Since  the  hypothesis  is  Fleay's,  I  will  quote  his  argu- 
ment: 

The  Arcadia,  a  Pastoral,  was  acted  by  the  Queen's  ser- 
vants at  Drury  Lane,  but  was  evidently  originally  pre- 
sented at  Court  on  a  King's  Birthday,  19th  Nov.;  cf.  iii. 
2  [read:  III,  i],  "to  celebrate  your  majestical  birthday." 
It  was  not  in  1633,  for  then  The  Young  Admiral  was  pre- 
sented. It  was  before  Nabbes'  Covent  Garden,  1632,  for 
that  contains  an  allusion  to  the  actor  who  personated 
Mopsa.  Heywood's  Love's  Mistress,  the  scene  of  which 
is  also  in  Arcadia,  which  was  the  King's  day  play  of  19th 

[71] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Nov.  1634,  is  filled  with  allusions  to  it.  The  most  likely 
date  is,  therefore,  19th  Nov.  1632.  This  play,  being  a 
Court  play,  does  not  appear  in  Herbert's  license-list.  I 
suspect  it  was  written  by  "command."4 

That  Fleay's  argument  is  not  absolutely  conclusive, 
must  be  admitted;  and  yet,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  no 
evidence  has  been  found  to  cast  doubt  upon  his  rea- 
soning. Tentatively,  therefore,  I  set  the  date  of  The 
Arcadia  as  November  19,  1632;  and  with  this  date, 
I  begin  my  account  of  Shirley's  second  dramatic 
period. 

The  following  year,  1633,  saw  the  production  of 
three  more  of  Shirley's  plays:  The  Bewties,  licensed 
January  21,  1632/3,5  and,  a  few  months  later,  pub- 
lished as  The  Bird  in  a  Cage;6  The  Young  Admiral, 
licensed  July  3,  1633  ;7  and  The  Gamester,  licensed 
November  n.s    Besides  these,  there  was  The  Night 

4  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II,  239. 

5  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  ill,  232,  note.  Gosse,  in  his  introduc- 
tion to  the  Mermaid  Shirley,  p.  xx,  gives  the  year  as  1632,  without 
specifying  that  it  is  Old  Style;  and  then,  forgetful  of  that  fact,  he 
places  the  play  before  Hyde  Park  and  The  Ball,  both  of  which  pre- 
cede The  Bewties  by  nearly  a  year. 

6  The  identity  of  the  play  licensed  as  The  Bewties  and  that  pub- 
lished as  The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  we  need  not  question.  Their  dates 
agree;  the  original  title  fits  the  subject  of  the  published  play;  and  the 
reason  for  the  change  of  title  is  made  evident  by  the  ironical  dedica- 
tion to  William  Prynne,  then  in  confinement.  Cf.  Fleay,  Anglia,  VIII, 
407,  and  English  Drama,  II,  239-240. 

7  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  ill,  232,  note. 
R  Ibid. 

1^1 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Walker,  "a  play  of  Fletchers  corrected  by  Sherley," 
licensed  May  1 1,  1633.9 

Concerning  The  Young  Admiral  and  The  Game- 
ster, interesting  entries  appear  in  the  office-book  of 
the  Master  of  the  Revels.  Under  date  of  July  3,  1633, 
he  writes : 

The  comedy  called  The  Yonge  Admirall,  being  free 
from  oaths,  prophaness,  or  obsceanes,  hath  given  mee 
much  delight  and  satisfaction  in  the  readinge,  and  may 
serve  for  a  patterne  to  other  poetts,  not  only  for  the  bet- 
tring  of  maners  and  language,  but  for  the  improvement  of 
the  quality,  which  hath  received  some  brushings  of  late. 

When  Mr.  Sherley  hath  read  this  approbation,  I  know 
it  will  encourage  him  to  pursue  this  beneficial  and  cleanly 
way  of  poetry,  and  when  other  poetts  heare  and  see  his 
good  success,  I  am  confident  they  will  imitate  the  original 
for  their  own  credit,  and  make  such  copies  in  this  harm- 
less way,  as  shall  speak  them  masters  in  their  art,  at  the 
first  sight,  to  all  judicious  spectators.  It  may  be  acted  this 
3  July,  1633. 

I  have  entered  this  allowance,  for  direction  to  my  suc- 

9  Malone's  extracts  from  Herbert's  office-book  include  two  refer- 
ences to  The  Night  Walker,  in  both  of  which  the  title  is  given  in  the 
plural: 

(1)  "'For  a  play  of  Fletchers  corrected  by  Sherley,  called  The 
Night  Walkers,  the  II  May,  1633,  £2.  o.  O.   For  the  queen's  players.'  " 

(2)  '  'The  Night-Walkers  was  acted  on  thursday  night  the  30 
Janu.  1633  [i.e.,  1633/4]  at  Court,  before  the  King  and  Queen.  Likt 
as  a  merry  play.    Made  by  Fletcher.'  " 

Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  236,  and  note. 

D3] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

cessor,  and  for  example  to  all  poetts,  that  shall  write  after 
the  date  hereof.10 

Four  months  later,  he  records: 

On  tusday  the  19th  of  November,  being  the  king's 
birth-day,  The  Yong  Admiral!  was  acted  at  St.  James  by 
the  queen's  players,  and  likt  by  the  K.  and  Queen.11 

And  the  following  February,  there  appears  this 
entry: 

On  thursday  night  the  6  of  Febru.  1633  [i.e., 
1633/4],  The  Gamester  was  acted  at  Court,  made  by 
Sherley,  out  of  a  plot  of  the  king's,  given  him  by  mee; 
and  well  likte.  The  king  sayd  it  was  the  best  play  he  had 
seen  for  seven  years.12 

This  royal  opinion — though  open  to  suspicion  of  par- 
tiality—appears to  have  been  well  founded;  for  Shir- 
ley's The  Gamester  and  its  successive  revisions  held 
the  stage  well  into  the  nineteenth  century. 

Shirley's  publications  for  the  same  year,  1633,  were 
a  second  edition  of  The  Wedding;  a  dramatic  alle- 
gory entitled  A  Contention  for  Honor  and  Riches, 
entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  for  W.  Cooke  the 
previous  autumn,  November  9,  1632 ;13  The  Witty 
Fair  One,  entered  for  the  same  publisher  on  January 
15,  1632/3  ;14  and  The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  also  for  W. 

10  Malone's  Shakspcre,  1821,  III,  232-233.  "  Ibid..  234.   IS  Ibid.,  236. 
13  S.  R.,  iv,  262.     In  the  entry,  the  title  reads:  A  Dialogue  of  Riches 
and  honor  by  J :  S.       14  S.  R.,  IV,  265. 

C74] 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

Cooke,  March  19,  1632/3.15  Of  these  four  publica- 
tions, the  title-pages,  transcribed  from  the  copies  be- 
longing to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq.,  read  as  follows: 

The  Wedding.  As  it  was  lately  Acted  by  her  Maies- 
ties  Seruants,  at  the  Phenix  in  Drury-Lane.  Written  by 
lames  Shirley,  Gent.  Horat.  — Multaq,  pars  mei  Vitabit 
Libitinam— London;  Printed  for  Iohn  Groue,  and  are  to 
be  sold  at  his  Shop  in  Chancery-Lane,  neere  the  Rowles, 
ouer  against  the  Suppeny-Office.     1633. 

A  Contention  for  Honovr  and  Riches.  By  J.  S.— ubi 
quid  datur  oti,  illudo  chartis— London,  Printed  by  E.  A. 
for  William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  neere 
Furnivals  Inne  gate  in  Holborne.     1633. 

The  Wittie  Faire  One.  A  Comedie.  As  it  was  pre- 
sented at  the  Private  House  in  Drvry  Lane.  By  her 
Maiesties  Servants.  By  lames  Shirley.  .  .  .  London 
Printed  by  B.  A.  and  T.  F.  for  Wil.  Cooke,  and  are  to  be 
sold  at  his  shop,  neere  Furnivals-Inne  Gate,  in  Holborne. 

1633- 

The  Bird  in  a  Cage.  A  Comedie.  As  it  hath  beene 
Presented  at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury-Lane.  The  Author 
lames  Shirley,  Servant  to  Her  Majesty.  Iuven.  Satyra. 
7.  Et  Spes,  &  ratio  Studiorum,  in  Caesare  tantum.  Lon- 
don Printed  by  B.  Alsop.  and  T.  Fawcet.  for  William 
Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  neere  Furnivals- 
Inne  Gate,  in  Holborne.     1633. 

15  S.  R.,  iv,  267.  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vm,  407,  misprints  this  as  March 
10.  In  the  entry  in  the  Stationers'  Register,  the  title  reads,  The  Bird 
in  the  Cage,  not  "a"  Cage. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

The  publication  of  The  Bird  in  a  Cage  incidentally 
presented  Shirley  in  the  role  of  champion  of  the 
queen  against  the  Puritan  satirist  William  Prynne. 
In  the  year  1632,  Henrietta  Maria  and  her  ladies  had 
taken  part,  at  court,  in  the  presentation  of  Montague's 
pastoral  drama,  The  Shepherds'  Paradise.1*  Their 
participation  may,  or  may  not,  have  been  the  actual 
occasion  of  Prynne's  obscene  abuse  of  women  players 
in  his  Histriomastix,  published  shortly  afterward;17 
but  the  Court  of  the  Star  Chamber  so  interpreted  his 

16  See  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  II,  173.  Fleay  once  suggested 
(Anglia,  vm,  407)  that  the  play  in  which  the  queen  participated  might 
have  been  Shirley's  Arcadia. 

17  Histrio-Mastix.  The  Players  Scovrge,  or,  Actors  Tragadie,  .  .  . 
Wherein  it  is  largely  evidenced  .  .  .  That  popular  Stage-playes  (the 
very  Pompes  of  the  Divell  which  we  renounce  in  Baptisme,  if  we  be- 
leeve  the  Fathers)  are  sinfull,  heathenish,  lewde,  ungodly  Spectacles. 
.  .  .  By  William  Prynne,  an  Vtter-Barr ester  of  Lincolnes  Inne.  .  .  . 
London,  .  .  .   1633. 

The  passages  concerning  women  actors  occur  on  pp.  162,  214-215, 
1000,  1002,  1003,  and  in  the  index  entry  under  "W."  Of  these,  the 
index  entry  shall  be  sufficient  illustration: 

"Women-Actors,  notorious  whores,  p.  162,  214,  215,  1002,  1003. 
Unlawfull.  Ibid.  Hence  Justinian.  Autenticorum  Collat.  5.  Tit.  4.  f. 
46.  enacted  this  Law:  Scenicas  non  solum  si  fidejustores  prestent,  sed 
etiam  si  jus-jurandum  dent  quod  observabunt  &  impiam  complebunt 
operationem,  &  quod  nunquam  ab  impia  ilia  &  turpi  operatione  cessa- 
bunt,  possent  sine  periculo  discedere.  Et  tale  jus-jurandum  a  scenica 
praestitum,  &  fide  jussoris  datio  non  tenebit.  And  good  reason:  for 
S.  Paul  prohibites  women  to  speake  publilcely  in  the  Church.  1  Cor.  14. 
34.  1  Tim.  2.  12.  And  dare  then  any  Christian  women  be  so  more 
then  whorishly  impudent,  as  to  act,  to  speake  publikely  on  a  Stage, 
(perchance  in  mans  apparell,  and  cut  haire,  here  proved  sinfull  and 
abominable)  in  the  presence  of  sundry  men  and  women?  Dii  talem 
terris  avertite  pestcm.  O  let  such  presidents  of  impudency,  of  impiety 
be  never  heard  of  or  suffred  among  Christians." 

[7«] 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

attack,  and  sentenced  the  unhappy  reformer  to  lose 
his  ears  in  the  pillory,  to  pay  a  fine  of  five  thousand 
pounds,  and  to  be  imprisoned  for  life.18  How  bit- 
terly James  Shirley,  "Servant  to  her  Majesty,"  re- 
sented the  attacks  of  Prynne,  appears  in  his  address  to 
Prynne,  in  the  verses  prefixed  to  Ford's  Love's  Sacri- 
fice, 1633: 

Look  here,  thou,  that  hast  malice  to  the  stage 
And  impudence  enough  for  the  whole  age; 
Voluminously  ignorant !  be  vext 
To  read  this  tragedy,  and  thy  own  be  next.19 

Even  more  bitter,  however,  was  Shirley's  ironical 
dedication  of  The  Bird  in  a  Cage: 

To  Master  William  Prynne, 

Utter-Barrister  of  Lincoln's-Inn. 

Sir: 

The  fame  of  your  candour  and  innocent  love  to  learn- 
ing, especially  to  that  musical  part  of  humane  knowledge, 
Poetry,  and  in  particular  to  that  which  concerns  the  stage 
and  scene,  (yourself,  as  I  hear,  having  lately  written  a 
Tragedy)  doth  justly  challenge  from  me  this  Dedication. 
I  had  an  early  desire  to  congratulate  your  happy  retire- 
ment; but  no  poem  could  tempt  me  with  so  fair  a  circum- 
stance as  this  in  the  title,  wherein  I  take  some  delight  to 
think  (not  without  imitation  of  yourself,  who  have  ingeni- 

18  Works,  II,  367,  note.  19  Ibid.,  vi,  509. 

mi 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ously  fancied  such  elegant  and  apposite  names  for  your 
own  compositions  as  Health's  Sickness,  The  Unloveliness 
of  Love-locks,  &c.)  how  aptly  I  may  present  you  at  this 
time,  with  the  Bird  in  a  Cage,  a  comedy,  which  wanteth, 
I  must  confess,  much  of  that  ornament,  which  the  stage 
and  action  lent  it,  for  it  comprehending  also  another  play 
or  interlude,  personated  by  ladies,  I  must  refer  to  your 
imagination,  the  music,  the  songs,  the  dancing,  and  other 
varieties,  which  I  know  would  have  pleas'd  you  infinitely 
in  the  presentment.  I  was  the  rather  inclined  to  make  this 
oblation,  that  posterity  might  read  you  a  patron  to  the 
muses,  and  one  that  durst  in  such  a  critical  age,  bind  up 
the  wounds  which  ignorance  had  printed  upon  wit  and 
the  professors:  proceed  (inimitable  Mecenas)  and  having 
such  convenient  leisure,  and  an  indefatigable  Pegasus,  I 
mean  your  prose  (which  scorneth  the  road  of  common 
sense,  and  despiseth  any  style  in  his  way),  travel  still  in 
the  pursuit  of  new  discoveries,  which  you  may  publish  if 
you  please,  in  your  next  book  of  Digressions.  If  you  do 
not  happen  presently  to  convert  the  organs,  you  may  in 
time  confute  the  steeple,  and  bring  every  parish  to  one 
bell. 

This  is  all  I  have  to  say  at  this  time,  and  my  own 
occasions  not  permitting  my  personal  attendance,  I  have 
entreated  a  gentleman  to  deliver  this  testimony  of  my 
service;  many  faults  have  escaped  the  press,  which  your 
judgment  will  no  sooner  find,  than  your  mercy  correct, 
by  which  you  shall  teach  others  a  charity  to  your  own 
volumes,  though  they  be  all  errata.  If  you  continue  where 
you  are,  you  will  every  day  enlarge  your  fame,  and  beside 

D8] 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

the  engagement  of  other  poets  to  celebrate  your  Roman 
constancy,  in  particular  oblige  the  tongue  and  pen  of  your 
devout  honourer, 

James  Shirley.20 

Doubly  appropriate,  in  view  of  this  dedication, 
was  the  selection  of  Shirley  to  be  the  author  of  a 
masque  in  which  the  four  Inns  of  Court  should  voice 
their  abhorrence  of  the  attitude  of  Prynne  and  their 
loyalty  to  the  king  and  queen.  This  masque,  which 
was  presented  at  Whitehall  on  February  3,  1633/4, 
and  again  at  Merchant  Taylors'  Hall  on  February 
1 1,  was  a  spectacle  of  the  utmost  magnificence.  The 
participants,  splendidly  costumed,  assembled  at  Ely 
and  Hatton  Houses,  and  proceeded  in  gorgeous  pro- 
cession, attended  by  torch-bearers  and  musicians,  to 
the  palace.  Twice  the  chariots  of  the  "Grand 
Masquers"  and  the  attendant  cavalcade  passed  under 
the  window  where  stood  the  king  and  queen;  then, 
dismounting,  the  participants  entered  the  banqueting- 
house  of  Whitehall.  There,  with  elaborate  scenery 
and  stage  effects  designed  by  "Inigo  Jones  Esquire, 
Surveyor  of  his  Majesty's  works,"21  and  to  the  ac- 
companiment of  music  composed  "by  Mr.  William 
Lawes  and  Mr.  Simon  Ives,  whose  art,"  says  the  mod- 
est dramatist,  "gave  an  harmonious  soul  to  the  other- 

20  Works,  11,  367-369-  21  Ibid.,  vi,  284. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

wise  languishing  numbers,"22  the  gentlemen  of  the 
four  Inns  of  Court  presented  James  Shirley's  masque 
The  Triumph  of  Peace.  It  was  an  entertainment  of 
dances,  songs,  and  spectacle,  set  in  dramatic  dialogue 
and  diversified  with  many  an  antimasque  humorous 
or  satiric;  an  entertainment,  says  the  printed  copy, 
"which  was,  for  the  variety  of  the  shows  and  richness 
of  the  habits,  the  most  magnificent  that  hath  been 
brought  to  court  in  our  time."23  Of  the  expenses  of 
this  masque,  Mr.  Whitelocke,  one  of  the  committee  in 
charge,  has  left  the  following  record : 

For  the  Musicke,  which  was  particularly  committed 
to  my  charge,  I  gave  to  Mr.  Ives  and  to  Mr.  Lawes  ioo£ 
a  piece,  for  their  rewards;  .  .  .  and  the  whole  charge  of 
the  Musicke  came  to  about  one  thousand  pounds.  The 
clothes  of  the  horsemen  reckoned  one  with  another  at 
ioo£  a  suit,  att  the  least,  amounted  to  io,ooo£.  The 
charges  of  all  the  rest  of  the  masque,  which  were  borne 
by  the  societies,  were  accounted  to  be  above  twenty  thou- 
sand pounds.24 

What  reward  came  to  Shirley  for  his  services,  White- 
locke does  not  state.25 

22  Works,  vi,  284. 

23  Ibid.,  vi,  283-284. 

24  From  a  MS.  by  Whitelocke,  quoted  by  Dyce  in  Works,  I,  xxviii, 
note. 

25  Concerning  The  Triumph  of  Peace,  Malone  {Shakspere,  1821, 
in,  236)  gives  the  following  extract  from  the  office-book  of  the  Mas- 
ter of  the  Revels: 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Besides  this  masque,  The  Triumph  of  Peace,  Shir- 
ley produced  in  the  year  1634  tw0  comedies:  The 
Example,  licensed  June  24,  and  The  Opportunity, 
licensed  November  29-26  In  the  same  year,  The 
Traitor,  destined  to  be  published  in  1635,  was  entered 
in  the  Stationers'  Register  for  W.  Cooke,  November 
3.27  The  Triumph  of  Peace,  entered  for  the  same 
publisher  on  January  24,  1633/4,  Passed  through 
three  editions  within  the  year.28  The  title-page  of 
the  copy  in  the  Hoe  Collection  reads: 

The  Trivmph  of  Peace.  A  Masque,  presented  by  the 
Foure  Honourable  Houses,  or  Innes  of  Court.  Before 
the  King  and  Queenes  Majesties,  in  the  Banquetting-house 
at  White  Hall,  February  the  third,  1633.  Invented  and 
Written,  By  James  Shirley,  of  Grayes  Inne,  Gent. 
Primum  hunc  Arethusa  mihi — London,  Printed  by  Iohn 
Norton,  for  William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his 
Shop,  neere  Furnivals-Inne-gate,  in  Holborne.     1633. 

The  year  1635  adds  four  items  to  our  chronology: 
the  publication  of  The  Traitor,  which  had  been  en- 

"The  Inns  of  court  gentlemen  presented  their  masque  at  court,  be- 
fore the  kinge  and  queene,  the  2  [sic]  February,  1633  [i-e->  1633/4], 
and  performed  it  very  well.  Their  shew  through  the  streets  was  glori- 
ous, and  in  the  nature  of  a  triumph. — Mr.  Surveyor  Jones  invented 
and  made  the  scene;  Mr.  Sherley  the  poett  made  the  prose  and  verse." 

26  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  232,  note. 

27  S.  R.,  iv,  303. 

28  The  entry,  S.  R.,  iv,  287,  reads:  "The  Maske  of  the  four  Inns  of 
Court  with  the  Sceane  as  it  is  to  be  presented  before  his  Maiesty  at 
Whitehall  the  third  of  ffebruary  next." 

[Si] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

tered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  on  the  third  of  No- 
vember previous;  and  the  licensing  of  The  Corona- 
tion, February  6,  1634/5  ;29  of  Chabot,  Admiral  of 
France,  by  Chapman  and  Shirley,  April  29  ;30  and  of 
The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  October  15.31 

For  this  edition  of  The  Traitor,  the  title-page  of 
the  copy  in  the  Hoe  Collection  reads : 

The  Traytor.  A  Tragedie,  written  by  lames  Shirley. 
Acted  By  her  Majesties  Servants.  London:  Printed  for 
William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  at  Furni- 
vals  Inne-gate  in  Holborne.     1635. 

This  was  the  last  work  of  Shirley  to  be  published  be- 
fore he  went  to  Ireland. 

Concerning  the  presentation  of  one  of  the  plays 
licensed  in  this  year,  Collier  quotes  from  the  manu- 
script diary  of  Sir  Humphrey  Mildmay  the  follow- 
ing entry: 

8  Dec.  [1635.]  Dined  with  Rob.  Dowgell,  and  went  to 
the  La.  of  Pleasure,  and  saw  that  rare  playe.32 

Of  the  other  plays  licensed  in  1635,  both  have  suf- 
fered from  disputed  authorship.  The  earlier  of  these, 
The  Coronation,  was  published,  but  five  years  after 

29  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  ill,  232,  note. 
80  Ibid.  81  Ibid. 

32  Collier's  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  II,  70,  note. 

[82] 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

its  presentation,  as  "Written  by  John  Fletcher, 
Gent."33  Shirley  reclaimed  it  in  his  "Catalogue  of 
the  Authors  Poems  already  printed"  appended  to 
The  Cardinal,  1652.  In  this  list,  against  the  title  of 
The  Coronation,  he  prints  the  note: 

Falsely  ascribed  to  Jo.  Fletcher.™ 

The  play  was  again  printed  as  Fletcher's  in  the  Beau- 
mont and  Fletcher  folio  of  1679;  but  in  view  of  Shir- 
ley's explicit  statement,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
Fletcher  had  been  dead  nearly  ten  years  before  the 
play  was  licensed,  we  need  not  hesitate  to  assign  the 
play  to  Shirley. 

Concerning  Chabot,  Admiral  of  France,  the  truth 
is  not  so  evident.  Malone's  summary  of  Herbert's 
license-list  gives  no  hint  that  the  play  is  by  any  hand 
but  Shirley's.  In  "A  Catalogue  of  such  things  as  hath 
beene  Published  by  James  Shirley  Gent.,"  printed  in 
The  Maides  Revenge,  1639,35  and  again  in  "A  Cata- 
logue of  the  Authors  Poems  already  printed,"  ap- 
pended to  The  Cardinal,  1652,36  the  titles  "Chabot 
Admirall  of  France"  and  "Philip  Chabot  Admirall 
of  France"  appear  without  mention  of  a  collaborator. 

33  From  the  title-page  of  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe, 
Esq. 

34  From  the  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  present  writer. 

35  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 
30  From  the  copy  in  the  possession  of  the  present  writer. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

On  the  other  hand,  although  the  Stationers'  Register 
names  only  Shirley  as  the  author,37  the  title-page  of 
the  first  edition  reads: 

The  Tragedie  of  Chabot  Admirall  of  France:  As  it 
was  presented  by  her  Majesties  Servants,  at  the  private 
House  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by  George  Chapman, 
and  James  Shirly.  London  Printed  by  The  [Tho.] 
Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke  and  William  Cooke.     i639.3s 

When,  from  this  external  evidence,  we  pass  to  the 
internal  evidence  of  style,  we  find  that  those  critics 
who  are  best  qualified  to  judge,  attribute  the  larger 
portion  of  the  play  to  Chapman.  Dyce,  in  his  ac- 
count prefixed  to  Shirley's  Works,  expresses  the  opin- 
ion that  "nearly  the  whole  of  this  tragedy  is  evidently 
from  Chapman's  pen";39  and  in  the  note  prefixed  to 
the  play,  he  adds:  "Chapman  seems  to  have  written 
so  large  a  portion  of  it,  that  I  .  .  .  thought  it  scarcely 
admissible  in  a  collection  of  Shirley's  works."40 
Fleay  was  of  the  opinion  that  "Chapman  wrote  I,  II, 
and  the  prose  speeches  in  III,  i,  V,  2,  of  the  Proctor 
and  Advocate.  .  .  .  Shirley  altered  and  rewrote  the 
latter  part,  III,  IV,  V."41     Swinburne  held  that  "of 

"S.R.,  iv,  415. 

38  From  the   facsimile  title-page  in  the  edition  by   Lehman,  Pub- 
lications of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,   1906. 
30  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  xxxii. 

40  Ibid.,  vi,  87. 

41  Fleay,  English  Drama,  II,  241. 

[SO 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

the  authorship  of  Chabot  there  can  be  no  question; 
the  subject,  the  style,  the  manner,  the  metre,  the  char- 
acters, all  are  perfectly  Chapman's."42  Ward,  in  his 
English  Dramatic  Literature,  remarked :  "Most 
readers  will  be  inclined  to  follow  Dyce  in  concluding 
'nearly  the  whole' — or  at  least  the  body — of  it  to  be 
from  Chapman's  pen" ; 43  and  in  his  article  on  Shirley 
in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  Ward  fur- 
ther said:  "Although  Shirley  may  have  made  some 
not  immaterial  additions  to  this  fine  tragedy,  which 
Chapman  may  have  left  incomplete  at  his  death  in 
1634,  there  can  be  little  doubt  but  that  in  substance  it 
is  to  be  reckoned  among  Chapman's  works,  to  some  of 
the  most  characteristic  of  which  it  exhibits  an  un- 
doubted affinity."44  Lehman,  in  the  introduction  to 
his  edition  of  Chabot,  sums  up  his  own  impressions 
thus: 

After  a  careful  comparative  study  of  Chapman's  and 
Shirley's  styles  and  methods,  I  have  reached  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  play  was  originally  written  by  Chapman  and 
subsequently  revised  by  Shirley.  There  is  scarcely  a  page 
upon  which  the  peculiarities  of  the  former's  style  are  not 
discernible.  The  principal  of  these  peculiarities  are:  in- 
volved sentences,  tortuous  thought,  and  the  tendency  to 

42  Swinburne,    Essay    on    George    Chapman's    Poetical    and    Dra- 
matic Works,  xxxii. 

43  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  II,  444. 

44  Ward,  in  DNB.,  lii,  133. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

philosophize.  On  the  other  hand,  the  evidence  of  re- 
vision is  to  be  found  in  many  places.  The  angular  gram- 
matical constructions  are  not  so  numerous  as  in  other 
plays  of  Chapman,  the  thought  is  somewhat  clarified,  and 
there  is  greater  degree  of  dramatic  unity  than  is  common 
in  Chapman's  plays.45 

Parrott,  in  his  introduction  to  Chabot,  in  his  edi- 
tion of  The  Plays  and  Poems  of  George  Chapman, 
1910,  agrees  with  Lehman  that  "the  play  was  origi- 
nally composed  by  Chapman  and  revised  by  Shirley." 
Parrott  believes  that  "this  revision  was  very  careful, 
and  amounted  occasionally  to  the  complete  rewriting 
of  a  scene";  and  that,  to  state  briefly  his  conclusions, 
"three  scenes  of  the  eleven  composing  the  play, 
namely,  I,  i,  II,  iii,  and  V,  ii,  remain  essentially  as 
Chapman  wrote  them;  that  II,  i,  and  III,  i,  are  prac- 
tically new  scenes  by  Shirley,  displacing,  in  the  first 
case  at  least,  older  work  by  Chapman;  and  that  all 
the  rest  of  the  play  presents  a  groundwork  of  Chap- 
man, revised,  cut  down,  and  added  to  by  Shirley."4Ba 
And  then,  after  a  plausible  hypothesis  as  to  how  the 
revision  of  this  play  by  Chapman  fell  to  Shirley,  Par- 
rott adds: 

Shirley  would  cut  down  the  long  epic  speeches,  cut  out 

45  Lehman,  The  Tragedy  of  Chabot,  introduction,  p.  25. 
45a  parrott,    The    Plays    and    Poems    of    George    Chapman.      The 
Tragedies,  p.  633. 

[86] 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

as  much  as  possible  the  sententious  moralizing,  fill  in  with 
lively  dialogue,  introduce,  or  at  least  strengthen,  the  fig- 
ures of  the  Wife  and  the  Queen  to  add  a  feminine  interest 
to  the  play,  and  in  general  make  it  over  for  the  stage  of 
his  day.  And  it  is  impossible  to  compare  Chabot  with  such 
plays  as  The  Revenge  of  Bussy  or  the  Byron  tragedies 
without  feeling  more  and  more  strongly  that  this  is  ex- 
actly what  happened.  The  amount  of  its  difference  from 
Chapman's  earlier  work  is  the  measure  of  Shirley's  re- 
vision. But  the  original  design  and  the  groundwork  of 
the  play  as  it  now  stands  is  Chapman's.4515 

The  most  adequate  and  most  recent  discussion  of 
this  question,  is  that  by  Schipper,  in  his  James  Shir- 
ley, Sein  Leben  und  Seine  Werke,  191 1.  Of  the  au- 
thorship of  Chabot,  he  says,  in  part: 

That  the  play  in  its  essence  cannot  come  from  Shirley, 
will  be  clear  immediately  to  every  attentive  reader. 
Against  Shirley's  authorship  speak  not  alone  the  pecu- 
liarities of  style,  e.g.,  the  often  long-spun  periods,  or  the 
peculiarities  of  verse-construction,  such  as  the  repeated 
occurrence  of  rhymed  verses,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
long-extended  use  of  prose,  but  also  the  content  and  the 
construction  of  the  action.  .  .  .  The  question  how  far 
Shirley  may  have  collaborated  in  the  play  is  difficult  to 
answer.46 

And  then,  after  citing  conflicting  opinions  as  to  the 


45b  Ibid. 

46  Schipper,  pp.  180-181. 


[87: 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

authorship    of    particular   portions,    Schipper   con- 
tinues : 

One  sees,  therefore,  how  large  a  part  the  subjective 
feeling  plays  here,  and  how  extremely  uncertain  are  its 
tests  of  authorship.  We  must  content  ourselves,  there- 
fore, with  the  fact  that,  in  some  way,  Shirley  collaborated 
in  this  play,  which,  however,  in  respect  to  its  substance 
and  its  style,  bears  essentially  the  characteristic  marks  of 
Chapman's  authorship.47 

Upon  the  details  of  this  discussion,  I  shall  here 
venture  no  opinion:  like  Schipper,  I  have  too  little 
confidence  in  subjective  feeling  as  a  test  of  author- 
ship. That  Shirley  had  some  hand  in  this  tragedy, 
external  evidence  appears  to  show;  but  that  his  share 
was  considerable  may  yet  be  doubted.  During  the 
twelve  months  preceding  the  licensing  of  Chabot, 
April  29,  1635,  Shirley  had  produced  The  Example, 
The  Opportunity,  and  The  Coronation.  What  time 
would  remain  to  him  for  work  upon  Chabot?  The 
history  of  France,  moreover,  was  Chapman's  favorite 
field;48  and  the  play  possesses  at  once  an  almost  clas- 
sical unity  of  structure  and,  in  the  opening  act,  an 
almost  pre-Shaksperian  crudity  of  exposition,  that 

47  Schipper,  p.  182. 

48  E.g.,  Bussy  D'Ambois,  1607;  The  Conspiracy  and  Tragedy  of 
Charles,  Duke  of  Byron,  1608;  and  The  Revenge  of  Bussy 
D'Ambois,  1613. 

C883 


THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

are  both  foreign  to  the  work  of  Shirley.  In  view  of 
these  considerations,  therefore,  and  in  view  of  the  ap- 
proximate unanimity  of  opinion  among  those  critics 
who  have  studied  the  style  of  Chapman  and  of  Shir- 
ley, I  feel  justified  in  the  position  that,  whatever  the 
precise  contribution  of  Shirley  to  The  Tragedy  of 
Chabot,  its  importance  is  not  such  as  to  warrant  its 
consideration  in  a  study  of  Shirley's  development  as 
a  dramatist.  From  the  critical  portions  of  this  mono- 
graph, I  shall  therefore  omit  all  discussion  of  Chabot. 
But  one  more  play  of  Shirley's  belongs  to  this  his 
second  dramatic  period :  The  Duke's  Mistress,  li- 
censed January  18,  1635/6.49  Five  weeks  later,  ac- 
cording to  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  the  play  received  the 
honor  of  a  presentation  at  court;  for  he  entered  in  his 
office-book: 

The  Dukes  Mistres  played  at  St.  James  the  22  of  Feb. 
1635  [i.e.,  1635/6].    Made  by  Sherley.50 

This  is  the  last  reference  to  Shirley  or  his  affairs 
prior  to  his  change  of  residence  to  Ireland.  In  May 
of  that  year,  the  outbreak  of  the  plague  in  London 
occasioned  the  temporary  closing  of  the  theaters;51 
and  Shirley,  to  all  appearances,  shortly  transferred 
his  activities  to  Dublin. 

49  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  232,  note. 

50  Ibid.,  238.  51  Ibid.,  239. 

OH 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

What,  then,  are  our  conclusions  concerning  the 
chronology  of  Shirley's  second  dramatic  period? 

First,  we  have  accepted  Fleay's  hypothesis  that  The 
Arcadia— oi  the  licensing  of  which  we  have  no  rec- 
ord—was probably  first  acted  on  the  king's  birthday, 
November  19,  1639.  Second,  we  have  noted  from 
the  official  records  the  dates  of  the  licensing  of  The 
Bewties,  The  Young  Admiral,  The  Gamester;  the 
presentation  of  The  Triumph  of  Peace;  and  the  li- 
censing of  The  Example,  The  Opportunity,  The 
Coronation,  Chabot,  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  and  The 
Duke's  Mistress;  and  we  have  noted  the  publication 
or  the  entry  for  publication  of  a  second  edition  of 
The  Wedding,  and  of  A  Contention  for  Honor  and 
Riches,  The  Witty  Fair  One,  The  Bird  in  a  Cage 
(The  Bewties),  The  Triumph  of  Peace,  and  The 
Traitor.  And,  lastly,  we  have  concluded  that,  al- 
though The  Coronation  is  to  be  ascribed  (despite  its 
title-page)  to  Shirley,  yet  Chabot  Admiral  of  France 
is  probably  in  too  large  a  part  the  work  of  Chapman 
to  warrant  its  consideration  in  our  study  of  Shirley's 
development  as  a  dramatist.  Upon  these  premises 
wc  shall  base,  in  Chapters  X  to  XIII  inclusive,  our 
conclusions  concerning  Shirley's  growth  from  1632 
to  1636. 


C90] 


CHAPTER  IV 

SHIRLEY'S  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

i 636-1 642 

A  LTHOUGH  Wood,  in  his  Athena  Oxonien- 
I  %  ses,  makes  no  mention  of  Shirley's  resi- 
JL  M  dence  in  Ireland,  the  fact  that  the  dramatist 
spent  about  four  years  in  Dublin  is  well  established. 
That  the  date  of  his  departure  from  England  is  1636 
—  not  1637,  as  Dyce  supposed— is  generally  accepted. 
Dyce  based  his  argument  on  a  letter  from  Octavius 
Gilchrist  printed  in  Wilson's  History  of  Merchant 
Taylors'  School/  in  which  Gilchrist  states  that  "in 
1637  Shirley  went  to  Ireland,  under  the  patronage  of 
George,  Earl  of  Kildare."2  As  Dyce,  however,  im- 
mediately questions  the  authority  of  the  second  part 
of  Gilchrist's  statement,  we  may  well  inquire  whether 
it  were  more  accurate  with  respect  to  the  date  1637. 
On  the  same  page,  moreover,  on  which  Dyce  quoted 
from  this  letter,  he  also  quoted— and  then  failed  to 
understand  — two  lines  by  Shirley  himself  in  a  pro- 


1  Part  ii,  p.  673. 

-  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  xxxiv. 


DO 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

logue  written  for  Middleton's  No  Wit,  no  Help  like 
a  Woman's  on  the  occasion  of  its  Dublin  presenta- 
tion: 

I'll  tell  you  what  a  poet  says :  two  year 
He  has  liv'd  in  Dublin.2, 

As  the  Dublin  presentation  of  this  play  occurred  in 
1638,4  this  passage  can  mean  only  that  Shirley  had 
lived  in  Dublin  since  1636. 

The  motive  for  Shirley's  change  of  residence  to 
Dublin  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  prevalence  of 
the  plague  in  London  in  1636,  and  in  the  closing  of 
the  theaters  that  resulted.  Of  this,  Sir  Henry  Her- 
bert writes  in  his  office-book: 

At  the  increase  of  the  plague  to  4  within  the  citty  and 
54  in  all.— This  day  the  12  May,  1636,  I  received  a  war- 
rant from  my  lord  Chamberlin  for  the  suppressing  of 
playes  and  shews,  and  at  the  same  time  delivered  my  sev- 
erall  warrants  to  George  Wilson  for  the  four  companys 
of  players,  to  be  served  upon  them.5 

Nine  months  later,  Herbert  writes  again: 

On  thursday  morning  the  23  of  February  the  bill  of 
the  plague  made  the  number  at  forty  foure,  upon  which 

8  Works,  vi,  493. 

4  As  shown  by  reference  to  the  date  in  Act  ill,  scene  i,  as  revised 
by  Shirley. 

Malonc's  Shakspere,  1 82 1,  III,  239. 

on 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

decrease  the  king  gave  the  players  their  liberty,  and  they 
began  the  24  February,  1636  [i.e.,  1636/7].6 

Presently,  however,  without  date,  he  adds: 

The  plague  encreasing,  the  players  laye  still  untill  the 
2  of  October,  when  they  had  leave  to  play.7 

This  prevalence  of  the  plague  in  London  and  the  con- 
sequent closing  of  the  theaters  from  May  12,  1636,  to 
October  2,  1637,  may  not  be  the  true  or  the  only  rea- 
son why  Shirley  was  desirous  to  leave  the  capital ;  but 
the  explanation  seems  sufficiently  probable  to  be 
made  a  matter  of  record. 

In  the  Irish  capital,  John  Ogilby,  for  whom  Shir- 
ley was  destined  later  to  perform  much  miscellaneous 
work,  had  opened  in  1635  a  theater  in  Werburgh 
Street,  the  first  in  Dublin.  For  this  theater,  Shirley 
appears  to  have  begun  dramatic  work,  writing  new 
plays  and  revising  old.  Among  his  poetical  works, 
we  find  eight  prologues  written  for  plays  presented 
before  Dublin  audiences:  "A  Prologue  to  Mr. 
Fletcher's  play  in  Ireland";  "A  Prologue  to  The 
Alchemist,  acted  there";  "A  Prologue  to  The  Irish 
Gent/';  "A  Prologue  to  a  play  there,  called,  No  Wit 
to  a  Woman's" ;  "A  Prologue  to  another  of  Master 
Fletcher's  plays  there" ;  "A  Prologue  to  a  play  there, 

6  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  ill,  239.     7  Ibid. 

C93] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

called  The  Toy";  "To  another  play  there";  and  "To 
a  play  there,  called  The  General."*  Of  Shirley's  own 
plays  written  during  his  residence  in  Ireland,  we 
shall  speak  in  course. 

Without  further  introduction  to  Shirley's  third 
dramatic  period,  I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  details  of 
the  chronology.  To  this  end,  as  in  former  chapters, 
I  shall  first  record  those  facts  which  are  well  known 
or  readily  established,  and  shall  then  consider,  one 
after  another,  the  questions  in  dispute.  For  example, 
there  is  the  possibility  that  the  date  on  which  Shir- 
ley's romantic  comedy  The  Royal  Master  was  pre- 
sented before  the  Lord  Deputy  of  Ireland,  was  not, 
as  has  been  supposed,  the  evening  of  New  Year's  Day 
of  1637/8,  but  the  evening  of  New  Year's  Day  of 
1636/7;  and  again  it  is  by  no  means  impossible  that 
Shirley's  alleged  visit  to  England  in  1637  is  as  unreal 
as  his  once-accepted  resumption  of  residence  in  Lon- 
don in  1638.  These  matters,  therefore,  belong 
not  to  our  immediate  record  of  established  fact,  but 
rather  to  the  later  pages  of  this  chapter,  our  discus- 
sion of  possibilities. 

Whatever  be  the  date  of  the  presentation  of  The 
Royal  Master,  and  whatever  be  the  truth  as  to  Shir- 
ley's alleged  visit  to  London,  the  year  1637  affords 
abundant  certainties.     The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  Hyde 

Works,  VI,  400-496. 

C94] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Park,  and  The  Young  Admiral  were  entered  in  the 
Stationers'  Register  for  W.  Cooke  and  A.  Crooke  on 
April  13,  1637,  and  were  published  in  the  same  year.9 
Their  title-pages  read: 

The  Lady  of  Pleasvre.  A  Comedie,  As  it  was  Acted 
by  her  Majesties  Servants,  at  the  private  House  in  Drury 
Lane.  Written  by  James  Shirly.  London,  Printed  by 
Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke. 
1637.10 

Hide  Parke  a  comedie,  As  it  was  presented  by  her 
Majesties  Servants,  at  the  private  house  in  Drury  Lane. 
Written  by  James  Shirly.  London,  Printed  by  Tho. 
Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke.     1637.11 

The  Yovng  Admirall.  As  it  was  presented  By  her 
Majesties  Servants,  at  the  private  house  in  Drury  Lane. 
Written  by  James  Shirly.  London,  Printed  by  Tho. 
Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke.     1637.12 

In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year,  two  more  of  Shir- 
ley's plays  were  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register 
for  the  same  publishers:  The  Example,  entered  Oc- 
tober 18,  1637  ;13  and  The  Gamester,  entered  Novem- 
ber 15.14    For  these  two  plays,  the  title-pages  read: 

9  S.R.,  iv,  355- 

10  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

11  Ibid. 

12  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  present  writer. 

13  S.  R.,  iv,  369. 

14  Ibid.,  373.    Not  October  18,  as  stated  by  Fleay  in  English  Drama, 
11,  233  (not  Anglia,  vin,  408),  and  by  Nissen. 

C953 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

The  Example.  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Majesties 
Servants  At  the  private  House  in  Drury-Lane.  Written 
by  lames  Shirly.  London.  Printed  by  Iohn  Norton,  for 
Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke.     1637.15 

The  Gamester.  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Majesties 
Servants  At  the  private  House  in  Drury-Lane.  Written 
By  lames  Shirly.  London.  Printed  by  Iohn  Norton,  for 
Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke.     1637.16 

In  this  same  year,  1637,  were  issued  new  editions  of 
Love  Tricks  and  The  Grateful  Servant.  Their  title- 
pages  read : 

The  Schoole  of  Complement.  As  it  was  acted  by  her 
Majesties  Servants  at  the  Private  house  in  Drury  Lane. — 
Haec  placuit  semel.  By  I.  S.  London  Printed  by  I.  H. 
for  Francis  Constable,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop 
under  Saint  Martins  Church  neere  Ludgate.     1637.17 

The  Gratefvll  Servant.  A  Comedie.  As  it  was  lately 
presented  with  good  applause  in  the  private  House  in 
Drury-Lane.  By  her  Majesties  Servants.  Written  by 
James  Shirley  Gent.  — Usque  ego  postera  Crescam  laude 
recens.  London:  Printed  by  I.  Okes  for  William  Leake, 
and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  in  Chancery-lane  neere  the 
Roules.     1637. 18 

Prom  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 
10  Ibul. 
17  Ibid. 
"  Ibul. 

C96] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

For  the  year  1638,  the  facts  of  record  concern 
chiefly  publication  and  entries  for  publication.  On 
March  13,  1637/8,  The  Royal  Master  was  entered  in 
the  Stationers'  Register— not  for  W.  Cooke  and  A. 
Crooke,  as  Fleay  asserts,19  nor  for  Andrew  Cooke  & 
Rich.  Serger,  as  Nissen  states,20  but  for  Master 
Crooke,  John  Crooke,  and  Richard  Searger.21  From 
these  discrepancies,  one  infers  that  Fleay  and  Nissen 
did  not,  on  this  point,  consult  the  Stationers'  Register 
itself,  but  were  content  to  accept  the  statements  of  the 
title-pages— sources  often  at  variance  with  one  an- 
other and  with  the  Register.  For  example,  the  copies 
of  The  Royal  Master  belonging  to  the  late  Robert 
Hoe,  Esq.,  give  two  further  statements  as  to  the  pub- 
lishers—statements which  agree  neither  with  Fleay's 
version  nor  with  Nissen's,  nor  with  the  Stationers' 
Register.  One  reads,  "by  Thomas  Allot  and  Ed- 
mond  Crooke" ;  the  other,  "by  Iohn  Crooke  and  Rich- 
ard Serger."  In  full,  these  title-pages  read  as  fol- 
lows : 

The  Royall  Master;  As  it  was  Acted  in  the  new  Thea- 
ter in  Dublin:  and  Before  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lord 
Deputie  of  Ireland,  in  the  Castle.  Written  by  lames 
Shirley.  —  Fas    extera    quzerere    regna.      Printed    by    T. 

19  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vm,  412,  and  English  Drama,  II,  233. 

20  Nissen,  p.  21. 

21  S.  R.,  IV,  385. 

C973 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Cotes,  and  are  to  be  sold  by  Thomas  Allot  and  Edmond 
Crooke,  neere  the  Castle  in  Dublin.    1638.22 

The  Royall  Master;  As  it  was  Acted  in  the  new  Thea- 
ter in  Dublin :  and  Before  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lord 
Deputie  of  Ireland,  in  the  Castle.  Written  by  lames 
Shirley— Fas  extera  quaerere  regna.  London,  Printed  by 
T.  Cotes,  and  are  to  be  sold  by  Iohn  Crooke,  and  Richard 
Serger,  at  the  Grayhound  in  Pauls  Church-yard.     1638.23 

These  two  copies  have  the  same  sheets  and,  except  for 
the  imprint,  the  same  title-pages.  The  first  was  in- 
tended for  sale  in  Dublin,  the  latter  for  sale  in  Lon- 
don. Evidently,  each  bookseller  was  supplied  with 
copies  with  a  separate  imprint,  even  though  he  was 
not  one  of  those  who  joined  to  enter  the  book  for  pub- 
lication. 

On  the  same  day,  March  13,  1637/8,  Shirley's  The 
Duke's  Mistress  was  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Regis- 
ter for  W.  Cooke  and  A.  Crooke.24  Nissen  notes  that, 
upon  the  title-page  of  the  copy  of  this  play  in  the 
Hamburg  City  Library,  A.  Crooke  alone  is  given  as 
publisher.25  On  the  other  hand,  the  Hoe  copy  bears 
the  name  of  William  Cooke : 

22  From  the  copy  of  the  Irish  issue  of  the  first  edition  belonging 
to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

1  I*  rom  the  copy  of  the  London  issue  of  the  first  edition  belonging 
to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

24  8.  R.,  iv,  385.  20  Nissen,  p.  21,  note  2. 

C98H 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

The  Dvkes  Mistris,  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Maj- 
esties Servants,  At  the  private  House  in  Drury-Lane. 
Written  by  lames  Shirly.  London,  Printed  by  John  Nor- 
ton, for  William  Cooke,  1638.26 

This  is  but  another  example  of  joint  entry  and  sepa- 
rate imprint:  its  only  moral  is  that  knowledge  of  a 
title-page  will  not  warrant  an  inference  as  to  the  entry 
in  the  Stationers'  Register. 

Six  weeks  later,  on  April  23,  1638,  The  Royal  Mas- 
ter was  licensed  for  London  presentation.27  Fleay,  in 
1885,  asserted  that  it  was  "licensed  for  the  Queen's 
men  at  Salisbury  Court." 2S  In  1891,  he  changed  this 
to  "at  Salisbury  Court,  by  the  Queen's  men,  I  sup- 
pose."29 As  no  extant  record  shows  for  what  com- 
pany the  play  was  licensed,  Fleay's  last  two  words  are 
wisely  added;  yet  his  supposition  is  probably  correct: 
so  far  as  we  know,  The  Doubtful  Heir  and  The  Im- 
posture, licensed  in  1640,  were  the  first  plays  that 
Shirley  gave  to  the  King's  men;  and  if  he  had  given 
The  Royal  Master  to  Beeston's  Boys  in  Drury  Lane, 
the  play  would  certainly  have  been  included  in  the 
list  of  Cockpit  plays,  August  10,  1639.  The  title-page 
of  The  Royal  Master  mentions,  as  we  have  noted, 
only  its  presentations  "in  the  new  Theater  in  Dublin : 

26  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

27  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  232,  note. 

28  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vni,  408. 

29  Fleay,  in  English  Drama,  II,  242. 

C99] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

and  Before  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lord  Deputie 
of  Ireland,  in  the  Castle." 

In  the  autumn  of  the  same  year,  1638,  were  entered 
for  W.  Cooke  and  A.  Crooke,  The  Ball  and  Chabot, 
Admiral  of  France.  The  date  of  entry  is  not,  as 
Fleay  asserts,  December  24,  1638,30  but  October  24, 
1638.31  The  actual  printing  of  these  plays  is  dated 
1639.  Both,  according  to  their  title-pages,  were  the 
joint  work  of  Chapman  and  Shirley;  but  the  Station- 
ers' Register  mentions  Shirley  only.  The  Ball  we 
have  reason  to  believe  is  chiefly  Shirley's;  Chabot, 
except  for  slight  revision,  Chapman's.32 

In  the  year  1639,  three  more  of  Shirley's  plays 
were  printed:  The  Ball  and  Chabot,  which  had  been 
entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  for  W.  Cooke  and 
A.  Crooke  the  previous  October;  and  The  Maid's 
Revenge,  entered  for  W.  Cooke  alone,  April  12, 
1639.33  The  title-pages  of  these  three  plays  read  thus : 

The  Ball :  a  Comedy;  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Maj- 
esties Servants,  at  the  private  House  in  Drury  Lane. 
Written  by  George  Chapman,  and  James  Shirly.  Lon- 
don, Printed  by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and 
William  Cooke.     1639.34 

The  Tragedie  of  Chabot  Admirall  of  France:  As  it 

0  Fleay,  in  Angl'ia,  vn,  408;  but  not  in  English  Dravia,  II,  234. 
11  S.  R.,  iv,  415.  -  Cf.  pp.  83-89,  supra. 

?■    A.'-    IV,    437. 

1  From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum. 

CIOO] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

was  presented  by  her  Majesties  Servants,  at  the  private 
House  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by  George  Chapman, 
and  James  Shirly.  London,  Printed  by  The  Cotes,  for 
Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke.     1639.35 

The  Maides  Revenge.  A  Tragedy.  As  it  hath  beene 
Acted  with  good  Applause  at  the  private  house  in  Drury 
Lane,  by  her  Majesties  Servants.  Written  by  lames  Shir- 
ley Gent.  London.  Printed  by  T.  C.  for  William  Cooke, 
and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  Furnivalls  Inne  Gate  in 
Holbourne.     1639.36 

Less  than  two  weeks  later,  on  April  25,  1639,  four 
more  of  Shirley's  plays  were  entered  in  the  Stationers' 
Register  for  W.  Cooke  and  A.  Crooke:  The  Corona- 
tion,   The    Opportunity,  Love's    Cruelty,   and    The 

35  From  the  facsimile  title-page  in  the  edition  by  Lehman,  Pub- 
lications of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  1906. 

36  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq.  Upon 
the  verso  of  folio  A2  of  this  copy  of  The  Maid's  Revenge,  is 
printed : 

"A  Catalogue  of  such  things  as  hath  beene  Published  by  James 
Shirley  Gent. 

"Traytor  Example 

Witty  Faire  one  Dukes  Mistresse 

Bird  in  a  Cage  Ball 

Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze         Chabot  Admirall  of  France 

Gratefull  Servant  Royall  Master 

Wedding  Schoole  of  Complements 

Hide  Park  Contention  for  Honour  and  Riches 

Young  Admirall  Triumph  of  peace,  a  Masque 

Lady  of  Pleasure  Maides  Revenge" 

Gamester 

This  catalogue  is  an  absolutely  complete  list  of  all  the  works  of 
Shirley  that  are  known  to  have  been  published  down  to  and  including 
the  year  1639. 

C"»:i 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Night  Walker.3'  The  play  last  named  is  merely  one 
of  Fletcher's,  revised  by  Shirley.  None  of  these  four 
plays  was  published  until  the  following  year.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  other  plays  of  Shirley  entered  in 
the  Stationers'  Register  in  1639:  The  Humorous 
Courtier,  entered  for  W.  Cooke  alone  on  July  29  ;38 
and  The  Arcadia,  entered  for  John  Williams  and 
Francis  Egglesfeild,  November  29.39  On  the  latter 
date,  Williams  and  Egglesfeild  also  entered  Love's 
Cruelty;  but  to  this,  Cooke  and  Crooke  had  a  prior 
claim.40 

The  Humorous  Courtier,  mentioned  in  the  fore- 
going paragraph,  had  never  been  licensed  under  that 
title;  but,  as  the  plot  turns  on  the  question  of  who 
shall  become  the  Duke  of  Mantua,  and  as  the  suc- 
cessful suitor  proves  to  be  the  Duke  of  Parma  in  dis- 
guise, we  are  accustomed  to  assume  that  the  play 
entered  and  printed  as  The  Humorous  Courtier  is 
identical  with  the  play  licensed  as  The  Duke,  May 
17,  1 63 1.41    I  find  no  ground,  however,  for  identify- 

37  S.  R.,  iv,  438.  Nissen,  p.  21,  asserts  that  Love's  Cruelty  was  pub- 
lished by  A.  Crooke  alone.  Perhaps  he  is  quoting  not  the  Station- 
ers' Register  but  a  title-page. 

38  Ibid.,  447.  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  409,  and  in  English  Drama,  II, 
234,  misprints  July  29  as  July  20. 

0  Ibid.,  465.  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  412,  twice  misprints  "Eggles- 
feild" as  "Egglestone";  and  Nissen,  p.  21,  spells  it  "Egglesseild." 

*°  Cf.  5.  R.,  iv,  438,  with  S.  R.,  iv,  465. 

41  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  406,  and  in  English  Drama,  II,  237,  mis- 
prints this  date  as  May  7  for  May  17.  Cf.  Malone's  Shakspere, 
1821,  m,  232,  note. 

[I02] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

ing  either  The  Humorous  Courtier  or  The  Duke 
with  the  play  entitled  The  Conceited  Duke,  men- 
tioned in  the  list  of  "Cockpitt  playes  appropried," 
August  10,  1639.42  Were  The  Conceited  Duke  the 
play  licensed  as  by  Shirley,  it  would  be  likely  to  stand 
with  his  fourteen  other  plays,  which  are  grouped  in 
the  middle  of  the  list.  Instead,  it  stands  next  to  the 
last,  among  plays  of  various  authorship.  Were  The 
Conceited  Duke  the  play  published  as  The  Humor- 
ous Courtier,  we  should  expect  to  find  the  disguised 
Duke  of  Parma  a  man  conspicuous  for  his  conceits. 
Instead,  we  find  him  the  sanest  of  the  suitors.  For 
these  reasons,  I  account  Fleay's  identification  of  The 
Conceited  Duke  with  The  Duke  of  Shirley  far  from 
warranted;  but  I  account  his  identification  of  The 
Duke  and  The  Humorous  Courtier  wholly  proba- 
ble.43 

The  only  other  fact  of  record  for  this  year  1639,  is 
that  on  October  30,  Shirley's  play  The  Gentleman 
of  Venice  was  licensed  for  London  presentation.44 
When  the  play  was  printed,  sixteen  years  later,  it  was 
described  on  its  title-page  as  "Presented  at  the  Private 
house  in  Salisbury  Court  by  her  Majesties  Ser- 
vants."45   This  is  the  only  one  of  Shirley's  plays  of 

42  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  in,  159-160,  note. 

43  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vm,  406,  and  in  English  Drama,  II,  237. 

44  Malone's  Shakspere,   1821,  III,  232,  note. 

45  From  the  title-page  of  the  copy  belonging  to  the  present  writer. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

which  we  know  positively  that  it  was  presented  at 
Salisbury  Court:  in  the  case  of  The  Politician,  we 
have  the  assertion  of  the  title-page  that  it  was  there 
presented;  but,  as  no  record  of  the  license  is  extant, 
we  must  admit  the  possibility  that  the  title-page  is 
incorrect:  in  the  case  of  The  Royal  Master,  we  have 
a  record  of  the  license;  but,  as  the  play  was  printed 
before  it  was  put  upon  the  stage,  we  have  no  title- 
page  to  tell  us  at  what  theater  it  was  presented.  Prob- 
ably, however,  all  three  of  these  plays  were  presented 
by  the  Queen's  men  at  Salisbury  Court. 

Early  in  the  year  1640,  there  were  entered  upon  the 
Stationers'  Register  the  titles  of  two  plays  otherwise 
unknown :  aThe  Tragedy  of  Saint  Albons,  by  Master 
James  Shirley,"  entered  for  W.  Cooke,  February  14, 
1639/40 ;46  and  "Looke  to  the  Ladie,  by  James  Shir- 
ley," entered  for  Williams  and  Egglesfeild,  March 
1 1,  1639/40.47  Why  these  plays  were  never  published 
does  not  appear. 

Some  six  weeks  later,  on  April  28,  1640,  two  more 
plays,  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland  and  The  Constant 
Maid,  were  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  for  R. 
Whitaker.4*    Neither  of  these  had  been  licensed  for 

**  S.  R.,  iv,  472. 

47  Ibid.,  475.  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vm,  409,  misprints  this  date  as 
M;irch  10  for  March  11;  on  page  412,  moreover,  he  gives  the  pub- 
lisher's name  as  "Fgglestone." 

11  Ibid.,  482.  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  412,  misprints  the  date  of  St. 
Patrick  as  October  28  for  April  28. 

[IO4] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

London  presentation ;  they  are  supposed  to  have  been 
written  for  the  Dublin  theater. 

Of  the  plays  that  had  been  entered  in  the  Station- 
ers' Register  in  the  previous  year,  The  Humorous 
Courtier,  Love's  Cruelty,  The  Arcadia,  The  Oppor- 
tunity, and  The  Coronation  were  all  published  in 
1640.  Possibly  to  this  list  we  ought  to  add  The 
Maid's  Revenge,  which  bears  upon  its  title-page  the 
date  1639.  As  the  year  1639  (Old  Style)  did  not  end 
until  March  25,  and  as  the  play  contains  a  dedication 
that  may  have  been  added  by  Shirley  in  the  spring  of 
1639/40  rather  than  at  the  time  when  the  play  was 
entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register,  April  12,  1639,  it 
is  possible  that  the  date  on  the  title-page  really  means 
1639/40.  The  title-page  of  this  play,  The  Maid's 
Revenge,  we  quoted  with  those  of  the  publications  of 
1639.49  The  title-pages  of  the  plays  of  1640  are  as 
follows : 

The  Hvmorovs  Covrtier.  A  Comedy,  As  it  hath  been 
presented  with  good  applause  at  the  private  house  in 
Drury-Lane.  Written  by  lames  Shirley  Gent.  London. 
Printed  by  T.  C.  for  William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold 
by  James  Becket,  in  the  Inner  Temple.     1640.50 

Loves  Crveltie.  A  Tragedy,  As  it  was  presented  by 
her  Majesties  Servants,  at  the  private  House  in  Drury 

49  See  p.  101,  supra. 

50  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Lane.    Written  by  James  Shirley  Gent.    London,  Printed 
by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke.     1640.51 

A  Pastorall  called  the  Arcadia.  Acted  by  her  Maj- 
esties Servants  at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury  Lane.  Written 
by  lames  Shirly  Gent.  London,  Printed  by  I.  D.  for  Iohn 
Williams,  and  F.  Eglesfeild  and  are  to  be  sould  at  the 
signe  of  the  Crane  in  Pauls  Church-yard.     1640.52 

The  Opportvnitie  a  comedy,  As  it  was  presented  by 
her  Majesties  Servants;  at  the  private  House  in  Drury 
Lane.  Written  by  lames  Shirley.  London.  Printed  by 
Thomas  Cotes  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  Will.  Cooke,  and 
are  to  be  sold  at  the  Signe  of  the  Greene  Dragon  in  Pauls 
Church-yard.     1640.53 

The  Coronation  a  comedy.  As  it  was  presented  by 
her  Majesties  Servants  at  the  private  House  in  Drury 
Lane.  Written  by  John  Fletcher.  Gent.  London,  Printed 
by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke, 
and  are  to  be  sold  at  the  signe  of  the  Greene  Dragon,  in 
Pauls  Church-yard.     1640.54 

Sometime  in  this  same  year  1640,  were  published 
also  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland  and  The  Constant  Maid, 
entered,  as  we  have  already  noted,  on  April  28.  Their 
title-pages  are  as  follows: 

1  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 
"  Ibid. 

'■'  I'  rom  the  copy  belonging  to  the  present  writer — identical  with 
that  brlon^ing  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

84  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

[106  3 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

St.  Patrick  for  Ireland.  The  first  Part.  Written  by 
James  Shirley.  London,  Printed  by  J.  Raworth,  for  R. 
Whitaker.     1640.55 

The  Constant  Maid.  A  Comedy.  Written  by  James 
Shirley.  London,  Printed  by  J.  Raworth,  for  R.  Whita- 
ker, 1640.56 

The  two  plays  of  Shirley  that  appear  to  have  re- 
ceived London  presentation  in  this  year,  are  The 
Doubtful  Heir,  licensed  June  1,  1640,57  and  The  Im- 
posture, licensed  November  io.58  Both  of  these,  ac- 
cording to  their  title-pages  of  1652,  were  acted  at  the 
private  house  in  Black  Friars,  i.e.,  by  the  King's  men. 
The  significance  of  Shirley's  change,  at  this  time, 
from  the  Queen's  men  to  the  King's,  I  shall  presently 
discuss. 

Sometime  in  this  year  1640,  most  probably  in  the 
spring,  Shirley  returned  from  Dublin  and  resumed 
his  residence  in  London.  As  the  precise  date  of  his 
return  is  one  of  the  debatable  points  in  the  Shirleian 
chronology,  I  reserve  its  detailed  consideration  for 
the  latter  portion  of  this  chapter,  and  here  proceed  to 
record  such  matters  as  are  certain. 

For  the  year  1641,  all  that  we  know  of  Shirley  con- 
cerns two  plays  then  licensed  for  presentation:  The 

55  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

56  Ibid. 

67  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  ill,  232,  note. 

68  Ibid. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Politique  Father,  May  26,  1641,59  and  The  Cardinal, 
November  25.60  The  former  was  never  published 
under  that  title ;  but,  as  we  have  shown  in  Chapter  II, 
in  our  discussion  of  the  identity  of  The  Brothers  of 
1626,  we  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that  The  Pol- 
itique Father  of  1641  has  survived  as  the  play  men- 
tioned as  The  Brothers  in  the  Lord  Chamberlain's 
list  of  August  7,  1641,  and  published  under  that  name 
in  1652.  That  play,  according  to  its  title-page,  was 
acted  "at  the  private  House  in  Black  Fryers."61  The 
Cardinal,  according  to  its  title-page  of  1652,  was  also 
acted  by  his  Majesty's  Servants.62  In  the  prologue, 
Shirley  ventured  the  opinion  that  "this  play  might 
rival  with  his  best";63  and  in  the  dedication,  1652,  he 
declared  it  to  be,  in  his  conception,  the  best  of  his 
flock.64  Certainly,  it  shares  with  The  Traitor  the 
honor  of  being  his  ablest  production  in  romantic 
tragedy. 

The  year  1642,  which  ends  Shirley's  career  as 
dramatist,  was  marked  by  but  two  plays:  The  Sisters, 
licensed  April  26,65  and  The  Court  Secret,  never  li- 
censed.    The  former,  according  to  its  title-page  of 

'  Malonc's  Shaksprre,  1 82 1,  in,  232,  note. 
00  Ibid. 

I  rom  the  copy  belonging  to  the  present  writer. 


n 

•  Jbid. 

Works,  v,  275 


"4  Ibid.,  273. 
1  Malonc's  Skaktpere,  1X21,  in,  232,  note. 


[.08] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

1652,  was  "acted  at  the  private  House  in  Black 
Fryers";66  the  latter,  according  to  its  title-page  of 

1653,  was  "Never  Acted,  But  prepared  for  the  Scene 
at  Black-Friers."67  Thus  concludes  Shirley's  third 
and  last  dramatic  period. 

From  the  certainties  of  Shirleian  chronology  for 
this  third  dramatic  period,  we  pass  now  to  questions 
in  dispute.  What  was  the  date  of  the  presentation  of 
The  Royal  Master  before  the  Lord  Deputy  in  Dub- 
lin Castle?  Did  Shirley  visit  London  in  the  spring 
of  1636/7?  Did  he  visit  London  in  the  spring  of 
1638/9?  At  what  time  did  Shirley  resume  his  resi- 
dence in  London?  What  did  Shirley  mean  by  writ- 
ing, in  the  dedication  of  The  Maid's  Revenge,  "Some 
say  I  have  lost  my  preferment"?  And,  finally,  must 
we  assume,  with  Fleay  and  Nissen,  that  the  reason 
why  Shirley,  on  his  return,  ceased  writing  for  the 
Queen's  men  and  began  writing  for  the  King's,  was 
that  the  Queen's  men,  during  his  absence,  had  pub- 
lished his  plays  without  his  knowledge  and  consent? 
These  several  questions  we  shall  in  turn  consider. 


FIRST  among  these  six  problems,   is   the  question: 
What  was  the  date  of  the  presentation  of  The  Royal 

66  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  present  writer. 
G7  Ibid. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Master  before  the  Lord  Deputy  in  Dublin  Castle? 
The  evidence  in  the  case  consists  of  the  entry  in  the 
Stationers'  Register,  on  March  13,  1637/8 ;  the  licens- 
ing of  the  play  (for  presentation)  on  April  23,  1638; 
and  the  publication  of  the  play  sometime  within  the 
year  1638  with  a  title-page,  dedication,  and  epilogue, 
all  bearing  upon  the  date  of  the  Dublin  presentation. 
The  title-page,  as  we  have  noted,  asserts  that  the  play 
was  "Acted  in  the  new  Theater  in  Dublin :  and  Be- 
fore the  Right  Honorable  the  Lord  Deputie  of  Ire- 
land, in  the  Castle" ;  the  epilogue  is  "as  it  was  spoken 
to  the  Lord  Deputy  on  New-Year's-Day,  at  night,  by 
way  of  vote,  congratulating  the  New  Year";68  and 
the  dedication,  which  was  presented  to  George,  Earl 
of  Kildare,  reads  as  follows: 

My  Lord : 

It  was  my  happiness,  being  a  stranger  in  this  kingdom, 
to  kiss  your  lordship's  hands,  to  which  your  nobleness,  and 
my  own  ambition  encouraged  me;  nor  was  it  without  jus- 
tice to  your  name,  to  tender  the  first  fruits  of  my  observ- 
ance to  your  lordship,  whom  this  island  acknowledgeth 
her  first  native  ornament  and  top  branch  of  honour.  Be 
pleased  now,  my  most  honourable  lord,  since  my  affairs  in 
England  hasten  my  departure  and  prevent  my  personal 
attendance,  that  something  of  me  may  be  honoured  to  wait 
upon  you  in  my  absence:  this  poem.    'Tis  new,  and  never 

88  ff'oris,  iv,  187. 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

yet  personated;  but  expected  with  the  first,  when  the  Eng- 
lish stage  shall  be  recovered  from  her  long  silence,  and 
her  now  languishing  scene  changed  into  a  welcome  return 
of  wits  and  men.  And  when,  by  the  favour  of  the  winds 
and  sea,  I  salute  my  country  again,  I  shall  report  a  story 
of  the  Irish  honour,  and  hold  myself  not  meanly  fortunate 
to  have  been  written  and  received 

The  humblest  of  your  lordship's  servants, 

James  Shirley.69 

This  dedication,  it  will  be  noted,  contributes  four 
facts  to  our  stock  of  information :  ( i )  that  The  Royal 
Master  was  Shirley's  first  composition  after  coming 
under  the  patronage  of  the  Earl  of  Kildare;  (2)  that, 
at  the  time  when  Shirley  wrote  this  dedication,  the 
play  had  not  been  acted— was  "new,  and  never  yet 
personated";  (3)  that,  at  that  time,  Shirley  was  on 
the  point  of  leaving  Ireland— his  affairs  in  Eng- 
land hastened  his  departure,  and  he  hoped,  by  the 
favor  of  winds  and  sea,  to  salute  his  country  again; 
and  (4)  that,  when  he  penned  the  dedication,  the 
English  stage  had  not  yet  recovered  from  its  long  si- 
lence—i.e.,  that  the  date  of  writing  was  some  time 
after  May  12,  1636,  the  date  when  the  theaters  closed 
because  of  the  plague,  but  prior  to  October  2,  1637, 
the  date  of  the  reopening.  In  view  of  these  four  facts, 
where  shall  we  place  the  presentation  of  The  Royal 

69  Works,  IV,  103. 

C*"3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Master  before  the  Lord  Deputy?  Shall  it  be  on  New 
Year's  Day  of  1636/7  or  on  New  Year's  Day  of 
1637/8? 

From  the  evidence  here  cited,  Fleay70  and  Nis- 
sen71  have  inferred  that  the  presentation  of  The 
Roxal  Master  "Before  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lord 
Deputie"  occurred  on  January  1,  1637/8.  Nissen 
deems  it  probable,  for  example,  that  Shirley  paid  a 
visit  to  London  in  March  or  April,  1637,  lured  by 
some  report  of  the  reopening  of  the  theaters  on  Feb- 
ruary 23  ;  that  he  brought  with  him  the  manuscript  of 
The  Royal  Master  with  the  dedication  already  writ- 
ten; that  he  left  it  in  England  to  be  printed;  that  its 
publication  was  then  deferred  (as  we  know)  until  the 
spring  of  1638;  and  that  meanwhile,  on  January  1, 
1637/8,  the  play  was  presented  before  the  Lord  Dep- 
uty at  the  Castle.72 

This  hypothesis  is  entirely  plausible;  yet  it  in- 
volves two  assumptions  that  we  may  well  avoid:  the 
assumption,  namely,  that  in  the  last  few  weeks  before 
the  play  issued  from  the  press  in  the  spring  of  1638, 
Shirley  despatched  from  Dublin  a  copy  of  the  New 
Year's  epilogue  and  a  new  title-page  mentioning  the 
production  of  the  play  in  Dublin;  and  the  still  greater 


.iv,  in  Anglia,  vni,  408. 
iten,  p.  is. 
T-  Ibid.,  pp.  18-19. 


[»*] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

assumption  that  Shirley  would  give  The  Royal  Mas- 
ter to  a  publisher  before  it  had  been  staged. 

Both  of  these  difficulties  we  may  avoid  if  we  but 
place  the  New  Year's  presentation  on  January  i, 
1636/7,  instead  of  1637/8;  i.e.,  if  we  suppose  that  the 
presentation  occurred  not  after  Shirley's  visit  to  Lon- 
don but  before.  Suppose  that  Shirley  wrote  his  dedi- 
cation, and  sent  it  with  the  manuscript  of  his  play  to 
the  Earl  of  Kildare  sometime  in  December,  1636.  He 
might  then,  with  far  more  likelihood,  call  it  the 
"first"  fruits  of  his  observance;  yet  he  could  still  say 
that,  since  the  previous  May,  the  English  stage  had 
been  languishing  in  "long"  silence;  that  the  play  was 
never  yet  personated;  and  that  his  affairs  in  England 
hastened  his  departure.  Suppose  then  that,  either 
with  or  without  the  influence  of  Kildare,  Shirley's 
play  was  presented  before  the  Lord  Deputy  at  the 
Castle,  on  January  1,  1636/7.  For  this  presentation, 
Shirley  would  write  the  epilogue;  and  the  play,  with 
title-page,  dedication,  and  epilogue  complete,  he 
could  then  take  with  him  immediately  to  London. 
There  the  hope  of  the  reopening  of  the  theaters  might 
well  have  detained  him  until  after  February  23 ;  and 
in  this  time  he  could  have  arranged  for  the  publica- 
tion of  the  three  plays  that  were  entered  in  the  Sta- 
tioners' Register  on  April  13,  1637,  to  each  of  which, 
as  we  know,  he  prefixed  a  dedication.    Then— possi- 

["3H 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

bly  for  the  convenience  of  the  London  actors,  possibly 
for  the  convenience  of  the  publishers— the  printing 
of  The  Royal  Master  waited  until  the  spring  of  1638. 
Such  is  our  chronology  if  we  assume  that  the  pres- 
entation before  Strafford  was  on  January  1,  1636/7; 
a  chronology  more  plausible  than  that  made  neces- 
sary by  the  date  usually  assumed.  That  Fleay  and 
Nissen  are  wrong  in  assuming  the  year  to  be  1637/8, 
we  cannot  prove;  but  more  in  keeping  with  all  the 
facts  we  know,  is  the  earlier  date,  1636/7. 

II 

For  this  year  1637,  one  further  problem  remains  to 
be  considered :  Did  Shirley  visit  London  in  that  year? 
In  our  hypothetical  chronologies  for  The  Royal  Mas- 
ter, we  allowed  for  such  a  possibility  in  the  spring  of 
1637;  but  whether  Shirley  made  such  a  visit,  we  do 
not  surely  know.  We  know  only  that,  when  he  wrote 
the  dedication  lately  quoted,  his  affairs  in  England 
hastened  his  departure.  Nissen  offers  in  evidence  the 
fact  that,  on  April  13,  1637,  three  of  Shirley's  plays 
—  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  Hyde  Park,  and  The 
Young  Admiral — were  entered  in  the  Stationers' 
Register  for  W.  Cooke  and  A.  Crooke;73  and  the 
fact  that  each  of  these  plays  as  published  bears  Shir- 

».V.  A'.,  iv,  355. 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

ley's  dedication.74  Equally  tenable,  however,  is 
Fleay's  hypothesis:  that  the  presence  of  these  dedica- 
tions indicates  not  that  Shirley  was  in  London  on 
April  13,  1637,  but  rather  that  he  had  prepared  for 
the  printer  both  his  manuscripts  and  his  dedication 
before  leaving  for  Ireland  in  1636.75  In  none  of  these 
dedications  does  Shirley  refer  to  Ireland,  or  to  his  life 
in  Dublin.  That  Shirley,  late  in  1636  or  early  in 
1637,  intended  soon  to  visit  England,  his  dedication 
of  The  Royal  Master  shows;  that  he  ultimately  ful- 
filled his  purpose,  we  cannot  demonstrate. 


Ill 


THE  third  of  our  six  problems  concerning  Shirley's 
last  dramatic  period,  is  the  question  whether  the  poet 
visited  London  in  the  spring  of  1639.  If  the  fact  that 
the  three  plays  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  on 
April  13,  1637,  were  prefaced  with  dedications, 
means  that  Shirley  was  personally  in  London  on  that 
date,  then  the  fact  that  The  Maid's  Revenge,  entered 
on  April  12,  1639,  has  likewise  a  dedication,  means 
that  on  that  date  Shirley  was  again  in  London. 
Moreover,  one  might  argue  that  the  dedication  itself 
supports  this  supposition.    "It  is,"  wrrote  Shirley,  of 


74  Nissen,  p.  18. 

75  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vm,  408. 


n"5n 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

the  play,  "a  Tragedy  which  received  encouragement 
and  grace  on  the  English  stage;  and  though  it  come 
late  to  the  impression,  it  was  the  second  birth  in  this 
kind,  which  I  dedicated  to  the  scene.  ...  It  is  many 
years  since  I  saw  these  papers,  which  make  haste  to 
kiss   your   hand."76     This    passage— especially   the 
word  "papers"— suggests  the  hypothesis  that  Shir- 
ley had  discovered  either  among  his  own  manuscripts 
or  among  those  belonging  to  the  Cockpit  company, 
a  copy  of  The  Maid's  Revenge,  first  played  in  1625/6, 
and  had  caused  it  to  be  entered,  April  12,  1639,  for 
publication.     All  this,  however,  is  but  supposition: 
the  passage  quoted  fits  almost  as  well  a  second  hy- 
pothesis presently  to  be  offered;  and  as  for  the  fact 
that  the  play  has  a  dedication— that  is  no  proof  of 
the  personal  presence  of  the  dramatist  in  London.    In 
short,  Shirley  may  have  visited  England  in  the  spring 
of  1639 ;  but  the  evidence  available  does  not  prove  the 
visit. 

The  second  hypothesis  accounting  for  the  presence 
of  the  dedication  with  The  Maid's  Revenge,  is  that  it 
resulted  not  from  a  visit  to  London  about  April  12, 
1639,  but  from  Shirley's  return  in  the  spring  of 
1639  40.  The  date  "1639"  upon  the  title-page  means 
-translated  into  New  Style— that  the  play  was  pub- 
lished  between  March  25,  1639,  and  March  25,  1640. 

Ta  Dedication,  in  Works,  I,  101. 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

The  dedication,  therefore,  may  have  been  supplied 
not  just  subsequent  to  the  former  date,  but  rather  just 
prior  to  the  latter.  This  second  hypothesis  we  should 
keep  in  mind  as  we  consider  our  fourth  problem,  the 
date  of  Shirley's  resumption  of  residence  in  London. 


IV 


On  what  date  did  Shirley  end  his  Dublin  residence? 
The  date  of  his  return  to  London  appears  to  fall 
somewhere  within  the  year  1640.  Dyce,  by  carelessly 
assuming  that  the  dedication  to  The  Royal  Master 
was  penned,  as  it  was  printed,  in  1638,  and  that  Shir- 
ley's purposed  "departure"  from  Ireland,  mentioned 
in  that  dedication,  was  for  permanent  residence 
rather  than  for  a  business  visit,  gives  the  impression 
that  Shirley's  Dublin  period  terminated  in  1638. 77 
That  this  cannot  be  the  case  is  evident,  as  Fleay  has 
pointed  out,78  from  the  opening  lines  of  the  pro- 
logue to  The  Imposture,  licensed  November  10, 
1640: 

He  [the  poet]  knows  not  what  to  write;  fears 

what  to  say. 
He  has  been  stranger  long  to  the  English  scene.79 

77  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  xxxiv-xxxv. 

78  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vm,  409,  and  in  English  Drama,  II,  246. 

79  Works,  v.  181. 

C"7] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Shirley  would  not  have  written  thus  in  1640  if  he  had 
been  resident  in  London  since  1638.  Moreover,  in  his 
dedication  of  The  Opportunity  (entered  in  the  Sta- 
tioners' Register  April  25,  1639,  but  not  published 
until  1640),  Shirley  thus  addresses  his  traveling  com- 
panion, Captain  Richard  Owen: 

This  Poem,  at  my  return  with  you  from  another  king- 
dom (wherein  I  enjoyed,  as  your  employments  would  per- 
mit, the  happiness  of  your  knowledge  and  conversation), 
emergent  from  the  press,  and  prepared  to  seek  entertain- 
ment abroad,  I  took  boldness  thus  far  to  direct  to  your 
name  and  acceptance.   .   .   .80 

Since  this  play,  which  was  "emergent  from  the  press" 
on  Shirley's  return  from  Ireland,  bears  the  date  1640, 
we  must  infer  that  Shirley  returned  either  in  1640,  or, 
at  earliest,  late  in  1639  (Old  Style),  i.e.,  in  February 
or  March  of  1639/40.    The  fact  that  The  Maid's  Re- 
venge, which  bears  the  date  1639,  has,  like  The  Op- 
portunity of    1640,   a  dedication,   may  be  best  ex- 
plained on  the  assumption  that  Shirley  returned  to 
London  early  in  the  spring  of   1639/40.     Such  an 
assumption,  moreover,  harmonizes  well  with  the  fact 
that  The  Doubtful  Heir,  licensed  as  Rosania  June  1, 
1640,  was  presented  not  by  her  Majesty's  Servants, 
but  by  the  King's  men  at  Black  Friars:  a  change  of 
Buch  consequence  as  to  indicate  (it  would  seem)  the 

Works,  in.  $69. 

C"3] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

presence  of  the  dramatist.  The  assumption  harmo- 
nizes also  with  the  supposition  that  Shirley's  poem 
To  the  E[arl]  of  S\_trafford~\  upon  his  Recovery81 
has  reference  to  Strafford's  illness  of  the  spring  of 
1640.82  Nissen  argues  that  "from  the  circumstance 
that  the  plays  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland  and  The  Con- 
stant Maid,  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  on  the 
28th  of  April,  1640,  appeared  without  dedication, 
one  may  be  inclined  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  he 
[Shirley]  had  not  yet  settled  again  in  the  capital  of 
England."83  But  although  the  presence  of  a  dedica- 
tion in  these  plays  might  indicate  that  Shirley  had 
some  hand  in  their  publication,  the  absence  of  a  dedi- 
cation does  not  indicate  that  they  were  published 
without  his  knowledge  and  consent— much  less  does 
it  indicate  that  Shirley  had  not  arrived  in  London. 
All  the  evidence  seems  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that 
Shirley  arrived  in  London  not  later  than  the  opening 
weeks  of  1640,  perhaps  even  before  the  twenty- fifth 
of  March,  the  date  when  the  year  (Old  Style)  legally 
began. 


OUR  fifth  problem  for  Shirley's  third  dramatic  pe- 
riod is  the  significance  of  a  passage  in  his  dedication 

81  Works,  vi,  428. 

82  Nissen,  p.  20. 

83  Ibid. 


£"9] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

to  The  Maid's  Revenge:  "I  never  affected  the  ways 
of  flattery:  some  say  I  have  lost  my  preferment  by  not 
practising  that  Court  sin."84  Dyce,  by  quoting  this 
passage  early  in  his  Account?5  leads  the  casual  reader 
to  suppose  that  Shirley's  words  refer  to  something  in 
the  first  part  of  his  career— as  if  they  dated  from  the 
original  presentation  of  The  Maid's  Revenge,  li- 
censed February  9,  1625/6,  not  from  its  publication 
in  1639  or  1639/40.  Such,  however,  cannot  be  their 
application.  They  must  refer  rather  to  a  loss  of  pre- 
ferment subsequent,  at  earliest,  to  the  years  1633  and 
1634,  when,  as  author  of  The  Young  Admiral,  The 
Gamester,  and  The  Triumph  of  Peace,  Shirley  cer- 
tainly was  high  in  favor.  Shall  we  suppose  that  Shir- 
ley's removal  to  Ireland  in  1636  and  his  continuance 
there  even  after  the  reopening  of  the  London  theaters 
in  October,  1637,  were  due  not  alone  to  the  ravages  of 
the  plague  in  London  and  to  the  opportunity  offered 
by  John  Ogilby  in  Dublin,  but  also  to  loss  of  prefer- 
ment at  court?  Had  Shirley's  satires  upon  fashion- 
able society  offended  others  than  Sir  Henry  Herbert? 
Why  should  the  sometime  favorite  of  king  and  queen 
be  drudging  for  Ogilby  in  Dublin? 

In  support  of  such  a  possibility,  we  may  cite  two 
bits  of  documentary  evidence:  Herbert's  entry  con- 

'  Dedication  to  The  Maul's  Revenge,  in  Works,  I,  101. 
I  »■  ■  e,  in  Works,  1,  viii-ix. 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

cerning  The  Ball,  November  18,  1632;  and  Shirley's 
allusion  to  the  same  matter  in  The  Lady  of  Pleasure, 
licensed  October  15,  1635.  The  first  of  these  (al- 
ready quoted  in  our  second  chapter)  is  from  the 
office-book  of  the  Master  of  the  Revels: 

18  Nov.  1632.  In  the  play  of  The  Ball,  written  by 
Sherley,  and  acted  by  the  Queens  players,  ther  were  divers 
personated  so  naturally,  both  of  lords  and  others  of  the 
court,  that  I  took  it  ill,  and  would  have  forbidden  the 
play,  but  that  Biston  promiste  many  things  which  I  found 
faulte  withall  should  be  left  out,  and  that  he  would  not 
suffer  it  to  be  done  by  the  poett  any  more,  who  deserves 
to  be  punisht;  and  the  first  that  offends  in  this  kind,  of 
poets  or  players,  shall  be  sure  of  publique  punishment.86 

Three  years  later,  with  evident  reference  to  The 
Ball,  Shirley  inserted  in  The  Lady  of  Pleasure  the 
following  lines : 

Another  game  you  have  which  consumes  more 
Your  fame  than  purse:  your  revels  in  the  night, 
Your  meetings  call'd  The  Ball,  to  which  repair, 
As  to  the  court  of  pleasure,  all  your  gallants 
And  ladies,  thither  bound  by  a  subpoena 
Of  Venus,  and  small  Cupid's  high  displeasure. 
'Tis  but  the  Family  of  Love  translated 
Into  more  costly  sin!    There  was  a  play  on't; 
And,  had  the  poet  not  been  bribed  to  a  modest 

86  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  231-232. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Expression  of  your  antic  gambols  in't, 
Some  darks  had  been  discovered,  and  the  deeds  too. 
In  time  he  may  repent,  and  make  some  blush 
To  see  the  second  part  danced  on  the  stage.87 

Thus  runs  the  play  licensed  for  presentation  in  the 
autumn  of  1635.  In  the  spring  of  1636,  Shirley  took 
up  his  residence  in  Dublin.  Have  we,  in  these  lines, 
an  explanation  of  his  departure,  and  of  his  words  in 
1639:  "I  never  affected  the  ways  of  flattery:  some  say 
I  have  lost  my  preferment  by  not  practising  that 
Court  sin"? 

On  the  other  hand,  may  we  not  rather  assume  that 
the  loss  or  alleged  loss  of  preferment— "some  say 
I  have  lost  my  preferment"— has  reference  not  to 
London  but  to  Dublin?  Had  Shirley,  for  the  mo- 
ment, offended  either  Strafford  or  Kildare?  Was 
Shirley  returning  to  London  because  in  Ireland  he 
had  lost  his  preferment?  These  questions  I  must  be 
content  to  leave  unanswered. 


VI 

OUR  final  problem  for  Shirley's  third  dramatic  pe- 
riod is  to  discover  why  Shirley  ceased  to  write  for  her 
Majesty's  Servants,  and  prepared  his  last  six  plays 
The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  1,  i;  Works,  iv,  9. 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

for  the  King's  men.     Concerning  this  matter,  Fleay 
wrote  in  1885: 

It  appears  that  a  dozen  plays  were  printed  during 
Shirley's  absence  in  Ireland  undedicated  by  him  and  with- 
out his  supervision.  .  .  .  Whether  he  was  annoyed,  as  I 
think,  that  the  Queen's  men  should  have  made  his  writ- 
ings public  in  this  way  or  for  some  other  reason,  he  wrote 
no  more  for  them ;  but  joined  the  King's  company.88 

By  1 89 1,  Fleay's  conjecture  has  become  a  certainty. 
He  writes: 

The  Queen's  men  in  the  plague  trouble  had  evidently 
been  selling  Shirley's  plays  without  his  knowledge  or  con- 
sent; and,  worse  still,  they  had  sold  Love's  Cruelty  twice 
over,  and  The  Coronation  as  a  play  of  Fletcher's.  .  .  . 
No  wonder  that  Shirley  left  writing  for  a  company  that 
had  treated  his  works  in  this  way  during  his  absence.89 

And  in  1901,  Nissen  states  the  assumption  still  more 
positively: 

Upon  his  arrival  in  London,  our  author  was  to  make 
the  unpleasant  discovery  that  during  his  absence  no  less 
than  twelve  of  his  plays  had  been  published  by  others. 
The  Queen's  men  had  published  not  only  the  pieces  played 
in  the  Cockpit  Theatre  before  his  departure  to  Dublin, 
not  yet  edited  by  him,  but  had  also  given  to  the  press  two 

88  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  vm,  409. 

89  Fleay,  in  English  Drama,  II,  243-244. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

of  those  dramatic  works  sent  back  from  Ireland,  St.  Pat- 
rick for  Ireland  and  The  Constant  Maid — two  dramas 
which  evidently  they  had  not  acted  at  all.  All  these  plays 
appeared,  therefore,  without  dedications;  and,  since  the 
author  did  not  supervise  the  printing,  the  text  in  many  of 
them  is  very  inaccurate.  .  .  .  The  Queen's  men  had  not 
only  sold  the  dramas  of  Shirley  in  their  possession  without 
his  knowledge  and  approval — Love's  Cruelty  even  twice; 
namely  to  the  firm  of  W.  Cooke  and  A.  Crooke,  as  well 
as  to  Williams  &  Egglesfeild— they  had,  what  is  perhaps 
still  worse,  sold  The  Coronation  as  a  work  of  Fletcher's 
and  Look  to  the  Lady,  a  piece  which  it  is  highly  probable 
was  not  written  by  him,  as  his  own.  That  our  poet  was 
indignant  over  such  treatment,  one  can  imagine.  He 
broke  off  his  relations  with  the  players  of  the  Queen. 
The  last  of  the  dramas  composed  and  acted  in  Ireland, 
Rosania,  which  he  brought  with  him  to  England  in  the 
year  1640,  he  offered  to  the  King's  Servants  playing  in 
the  Black  Friars  and  Globe  Theatre.  This  company, 
whose  playwright  he  became  when  Heywood  ceased  to 
write  for  the  stage,  brought  out  his  later  dramatic  works.90 

What  is  this  argument  of  Fleay  and  Nissen?  Dur- 
ing Shirley's  residence  in  Ireland,  twelve  of  his  plays 
(including  Chabot  and  The  Night  Walker  as  by 
Shirley)  were  published  in  London  without  his  dedi- 
cation :  therefore  these  plays  were  published  without 
his  knowledge  or  consent:  therefore  he  had  grounds 
for  anger— anger  against  the  Queen's  players:  for 
x     en,  pp.  20-21. 

["43 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

this  reason  he  ceased  writing  for  the  Queen's  players, 
and  wrote  thenceforth  only  for  the  players  of  the 
King. 

Let  us  examine  certain  of  the  links  in  this  long 
argument.  We  might,  perhaps,  inquire  whether  ab- 
sence of  dedication  is  adequate  proof  of  absence  of 
knowledge  or  consent  to  publication ;  but  we  will  let 
that  point  pass.  Let  us  grant  that  all  twelve  of  these 
plays  were  put  in  print  unknown  to  Shirley.  Does 
it  follow  that  he  had  grounds  for  anger?  Was  Shir- 
ley the  man  that  had  been  wronged?  In  short,  was 
the  playwright  the  owner  of  the  play  for  the  purposes 
of  publication? 

One  document  that  has  survived  to  us  from  the  year 
1637,  appears  to  uphold  a  different  interpretation. 
In  a  long  letter  directed  by  the  Lord  Chamberlain, 
Philip,  Earl  of  Pembroke  and  Montgomery,  to  the 
Master  and  Wardens  of  the  Company  of  Printers  and 
Stationers,  dated  June  10,  1637,  the  Lord  Chamber- 
lain distinctly  states  that  the  companies  of  players 
owned  plays,  "bought  and  provided  at  very  dear  and 
high  rates";  that  the  printing  of  these  plays  without 
the  authority  of  the  players  resulted  not  only  in 
"much  prejudice"  to  the  actors,  but  in  "much  corrup- 
tion" to  the  books,  "to  the  injury  and  disgrace  of  the 
authors";  and  that,  since  "some  copies  of  plays  be- 
longing to  the  King  and  Queen's  servants,  the  play- 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ers,  .  .  .  having  been  lately  stolen,  or  gotten  from 
them  by  indirect  means,  are  now  attempted  to  be 
printed,"  the  Lord  Chamberlain  commands  that  the 
Stationers  see  that  no  play  be  printed  without  the 
express  permission  of  the  company  of  players  con- 
cerned.91 In  a  similar  letter,  dated  August  7,  1641, 
the  Earl  of  Essex,  successor  to  the  Earl  of  Pembroke 
and  Montgomery  in  the  office  of  Lord  Chamberlain, 
is  equally  specific.014  If  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  or- 
der be  good  law,  then  not  Shirley  but  the  company  of 
actors  would  be  the  aggrieved  party  in  case  of  the 
unauthorized  publication  of  a  play. 

But  let  us  waive  this  point  also.  Let  us  assume  that 
Shirley  was  justly  angry  at  the  publication  of  his 
plays  without  his  knowledge  or  consent.  Against 
whom  should  he  be  angry?  Against  the  Queen's 
players,  say  Fleay  and  Nissen. 

The  objection  to  this  assumption  is  that  the  com- 
pany of  her  Majesty's  Servants  who,  during  Shirley's 
residence  in  Ireland,  presented  certain  of  his  plays 
at  Salisbury  Court,  and  whom  he  abandoned  in  favor 
ol  the  King's  men  on  his  return  from  Dublin,  is  not 
the  company  of  the  same  name  that,  before  Shirley's 

1  This  letter  is  printed,  wholly  or  in  part,  in  Chalmers's  Apology, 
pp.  S  i.l-  Si  4.  note  v:  Collier's  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  II,  83-84, 
note;  and  Alalone's  Shakspere,  1821,  in,  160-161,  note. 

1  Reprinted  by  Chambers  in  The  Malone  Society  Collections, 
Part.  //'   cjf  /',  pp.  364-369. 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Dublin  period,  brought  out  his  plays  at  the  Private 
House  in  Drury  Lane;  and  there  is  no  evidence  that 
the  new  company  inherited  any  of  Shirley's  manu- 
scripts from  the  original  company. 

Down  to  the  year  1637,  all  of  Shirley's  plays  with 
one  exception92  had  been  acted  by  the  Queen's  men 
under  Christopher  Beeston,  acting  in  the  Private 
House  in  Drury  Lane,  otherwise  known  as  the  "Phoe- 
nix" and  the  "Cockpit."  When  the  plague  of  1636- 
1637  occasioned  the  long  closing  of  the  theaters, 
Christopher  and  William  Beeston  organized  a  com- 
pany of  boys  for  acting  plays  at  court.93  It  was  with 
such  a  company,  not  with  the  adult  "Queen's  men," 
that  the  Beestons  reopened  the  Cockpit  on  October 
2,  1637.  As  a  result,  Turner,  Perkins,  Sumner,  and 
Sherlock,  of  the  old  company,  united  with  the  best 
of  the  former  Revels  Company  at  Salisbury  Court.94 
This  new  organization  under  Turner,95  adopted  the 

92  See  the  title-pages  in  the  Bibliography.  The  exception  is  Changes, 
or  Love  in  a  Maze,  acted  "at  the  Private  House  in  Salisbury  Court, 
by  the  Company  of  His  Majesties  Revels." 

93  See  Herbert's  entries  for  February  7  and  14,  1636/7,  in  Malone's 
Shakspere,  1821,  III,  239. 

94  See  Herbert's  entries  of  October  2,  1637,  quoted  by  Malone, 
Shakspere,  1 82 1,  III,  240. 

95  Turner's  managership  is  inferred  from  the  following  entry  quoted 
in  Chalmers's  Apology,  p.  511,  note,  from  a  manuscript  book  in  the 
Lord  Chamberlain's  office: 

"6th  March  1639/40 — A  warrant  for  £80,  unto  Henry  Turner  &c. 
the  Queen's  players,  for  seven  plays  by  them  acted  at  court  in  1638, 
&  1639;  whereof  £20  for  one  play  at  Richmond." 

[127] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

name  of  "her  Majesty's  Servants."  They  presented 
Shirley's  The  Gentleman  of  Venice,  and,  presumably, 
The  Royal  Master  and  The  Politician;  but  they  were 
not  her  Majesty's  Servants  of  the  Cockpit,  the  Phoe- 
nix, the  Private  House  in  Drury  Lane.  The  old 
company  had  ceased  to  be.96 

Nor  can  it  be  shown  that  the  new  company  at  Salis- 
bury Court  inherited,  from  its  namesake  of  the  Cock- 
pit, any  of  the  plays  of  Shirley.  The  number  of  plays 
by  Shirley  acted  before  he  went  to  Dublin,  is  twenty- 
three.  Of  these,  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  list  of  Au- 
gust 10,  1639,  names  fifteen  as  the  property  of  Wil- 
liam Beeston  as  governor  of  the  young  company  at  the 
Cockpit.97  Among  these  fifteen,  stand  five  plays 
which  Fleay  and  Nissen  assert  were  sold  to  the  pub- 
lishers by  the  Queen's  men!  Are  we  to  assume  that 
the  actors  of  Salisbury  Court  stole  these  five  plays 
from  the  Cockpit  children  to  sell  to  the  stationers? 

And  what  grounds  has  Nissen  for  the  assumption 
that  the  Queen's  men  "had  also  given  to  the  press  two 
of  those  dramatic  works  sent  back  from  Ireland,  St. 
Patrick  for  Ireland  and  The  Constant  Maid"?  How 
do  we  know  that  the  Queen's  men  ever  had  these  plays 
in  their  possession? 

"  On  the  history  of  the  several  companies  mentioned,  see  especially, 
Murr;i\,   English  Dramatic  Companies. 

The   MS.  is  quoted  by  Collier,  English  Dramatic  Poetry,  II,  92, 
note.    Cf.  Malone'i  Shakspere,  1821,  in,  159-160,  note. 

I>8] 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

And  what  of  the  plays  that  were  acted,  or  presuma- 
bly were  acted,  at  Salisbury  Court?  Were  they  like- 
wise published  without  Shirley's  knowledge  and  con- 
sent? On  the  contrary,  The  Royal  Master,  The  Gen- 
tleman of  Venice,  and  The  Politician— the  only  plays 
assignable  on  any  ground  to  Salisbury  Court— all 
were  published  with  dedications  signed  by  Shirley: 
two  of  them  after  a  wait  of  over  fifteen  years. 

In  short,  even  if  we  assume  that  the  twelve  plays 
published  without  dedication  during  Shirley's  ab- 
sence, were  published  without  his  knowledge  and 
consent— an  assumption  of  the  utmost  liberality— and 
even  if  we  assume  further  that,  in  such  publication, 
Shirley  was  the  man  aggrieved— an  assumption  that 
appears  contrary  to  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  letter  of 
June  10,  1637— we  are  yet  unable  to  discover  why 
Shirley's  anger  should  be  directed  against  the  Queen's 
men  of  Salisbury  Court;  for,  of  the  plays  of  Shirley 
known  to  have  been  in  their  possession,  not  one  was 
published  without  Shirley's  dedication,  and  of  the 
twelve  plays  published  without  dedication,  not  one 
can  be  shown  to  have  been  in  their  possession.  Under 
these  circumstances,  let  us  not  accuse  her  Majesty's 
Servants  of  literary  larceny. 

But,  one  asks,  if  the  Salisbury  Court  men  had  not 
made  Shirley  angry,  presumably  by  disposing  of  his 
manuscripts,  why  then  did  he  sever  his  connection 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

with  them  and  begin  writing  for  the  King's  men  at 
Black  Friars? 

The  answer,  it  seems  to  me,  is  to  be  found  in  the 
changes  which  the  old  "Queen's  men"  had  under- 
gone in  Shirley's  absence.  He  returned  from  Ireland 
in  the  spring  of  1640,  to  find  that  his  old  manager, 
Christopher  Beeston  of  the  Phoenix— the  Cockpit— 
the  Private  House  in  Drury  Lane— had  transferred 
his  attention  to  a  company  of  boys,  and,  presently, 
had  been  superseded  in  the  management  of  these 
young  players  by  William  Beeston,  who,  in  turn,  was 
about  to  be  superseded,  June  27,  1640,  by  William 
Davenant.98  Shirley  returned  to  find  that  the  old 
"Queen's  men"  that  he  had  known,  had  ceased  to  be; 
and  that  the  name  "her  Majesty's  Servants"  was  now 
borne  by  a  new  organization  under  Turner,  an  or- 
ganization consisting  of  four  of  the  old  "Queen's 
men"  joined  with  the  best  of  the  former  Revels  Com- 
pany of  Salisbury  Court.  This  new  company  had 
presented,  during  Shirley's  residence  in  Dublin,  his 
Gentleman  of  Venice,  and  probably  also  The  Politi- 
<  Ian  and  The  Royal  Master;  but  it  could  have  had 
for  Shirley  no  especial  interest.  These  actors  were 
not  the  Queen's  men  of  the  Cockpit  in  Drury  Lane, 
the  players  under  Beeston  who  had  produced  almost 

the  document  quoted  by  Collier  in  English  Dramatic  Poetry, 

If,    101,  nof. 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

every  play  of  Shirley  from  the  day  when  the  modest 
schoolmaster  of  St.  Albans  had  "retired  to  the  Me- 
tropolis, lived  in  Greys  inn,  and  set  up  for  a  play- 
maker."  They  were  merely  a  new  company  of  actors 
under  a  new  manager,  who,  during  Shirley's  absence 
in  Ireland,  had  presented  three  plays  that  he  had  sent 
to  them.  Why  should  he  continue  to  write  for  this 
new  company?  Why  should  he  not  seek  a  position 
with  a  better  company?  The  King's  men  were  well 
established  at  Black  Friars  and  the  Globe.  With  the 
death  of  Massinger,"  they  would  welcome  such 
a  dramatist  as  Shirley.  For  this  reason,  I  believe, 
and  not  from  indignation  that  the  Queen's  men  had 
published  his  plays  without  his  knowledge  and  con- 
sent, Shirley  in  1640  began  writing  for  his  Majesty's 
Servants  at  Black  Friars. 

What,  then,  are  our  conclusions  concerning  the 
chronology  of  Shirley's  last  dramatic  period?  In  the 
first  place,  we  have  noted  Shirley's  removal  to  Dublin 
in  the  year  1636,  the  probable  motive  for  his  removal 
(the  plague  in  London),  and  his  establishment  in 
Dublin  as  dramatist  to  John  Ogilby's  new  theater  in 
Werburgh  Street.  Secondly,  we  have  verified  from 
Malone's  transcript  of  the  office-book  of  Sir  Henry 
Herbert,  Master  of  the  Revels,  from  the  Stationers' 
Register,  and  from  the  title-pages  of  the  published 

99  Died  March,  1639/40. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

plays,  the  available  facts  concerning  the  presentation 
of  The  Royal  Master,  The  Gentleman  of  Venice,  The 
Politician,  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland,  The  Constant 
Maid,  Rosania  (The  Doubtful  Heir),  The  Impos- 
ture, The  Politique  Father  (The  Brothers  of  1652), 
The  Cardinal,  The  Sisters,  and  The  Court  Secret; 
and  concerning  the  publication  of  The  Lady  of  Plea- 
sure, Hyde  Park,  The  Young  Admiral,  The  Exam- 
ple, The  Gamester,  The  Royal  Master,  The  Duke's 
Mistress,  The  Ball,  Chahot,  The  Maid's  Revenge, 
The  Coronation,  The  Opportunity ,  Love's  Cruelty, 
The  Night  Walker,  The  Humorous  Courtier  (The 
Duke),  The  Arcadia,  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland,  and 
The  Constant  Maid.  And  finally,  with  respect  to 
questions  in  dispute,  we  have  concluded :  ( 1 )  that  the 
date  of  the  presentation  of  The  Royal  Master  before 
the  Lord  Deputy  in  Dublin  Castle,  may  have  been  the 
evening  of  January  1,  1636/7,  rather  than  January  1, 
1637/8,  as  has  been  usually  assumed;  (2)  that  Shir- 
ley's alleged  visit  to  London  in  the  spring  of  1637 
may  have  taken  place  but,  on  the  basis  of  extant  evi- 
dence, is  incapable  of  proof  5(3)  that  the  same  is  true 
<>f  Shirley's  alleged  visit  in  the  spring  of  1639;  (4) 
that  the  date  of  Shirley's  ultimate  return  to  London 
1-  [640,  probably  in  the  spring,  and  perhaps  even  be- 
fore March  25,  the  date  when  the  new  year  (Old 
Style)  Legally  began;  (5)  that  Shirley's  references  to 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

his  having  lost  his  preferment  must  refer  to  a  mis- 
fortune subsequent  to  1633  and  1634,  and  may  refer 
either  to  loss  of  preferment  at  court— possibly  as  a 
result  of  his  personal  satire  in  The  Ball  and  in  The 
Lady  of  Pleasure— in  1635,  or  to  loss  of  preferment 
in  Ireland  in  1639,  or  to  neither;  and  (6)  that  Shir- 
ley's reason  for  ceasing  to  write  for  the  Queen's  men 
on  his  return  from  Ireland,  was  probably  not  his  in- 
dignation over  the  publication  of  certain  plays,  but 
merely  the  fact  that  the  original  company  of  her  Maj- 
esty's Servants  was  no  longer  in  existence,  and  that 
the  King's  men  offered  him  a  more  promising  posi- 
tion than  could  the  new  company  of  her  Majesty's 
Servants  at  Salisbury  Court.  With  these  facts  as 
a  basis  and  a  background,  we  shall  endeavor  in  Chap- 
ters XIV  to  XVIII  inclusive,  to  complete  our  study 
of  Shirley's  development  as  a  dramatist. 

I  cannot  better  conclude  my  record  of  Shirley's 
third  and  last  dramatic  period,  than  by  quoting  the 
prologue  of  his  last  acted  comedy,  The  Sisters: 

Does  this  look  like  a  Term?    I  cannot  tell ; 
Our  Poet  thinks  the  whole  Town  is  not  well, 
Has  took  some  physic  lately,  and,  for  fear 
Of  catching  cold,  dares  not  salute  this  air. 
But  there's  another  reason.    I  hear  say 
London  is  gone  to  York;  'tis  a  great  way. 

CI333 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Pox  o'  the  proverb,  and  of  him,  say  I, 

That  look'd  o'er  Lincoln  !  'cause  that  was,  must  we 

Be  now  translated  north?    I  could  rail,  too, 

On  Gammar  Shipton's  ghost;  but  'twill  not  do: 

The  town  will  still  be  flecking;  and  a  play, 

Though  ne'er  so  new,  will  starve  the  second  day. 

Upon  these  very  hard  conditions, 

Our  Poet  will  not  purchase  many  towns; 

And  if  you  leave  us  too,  we  cannot  thrive : 

I'll  promise  neither  Play  nor  Poet  live 

Till  ye  come  back.    Think  what  you  do.    You  see 

What  audiences  we  have,  what  company 

To  Shakspere  comes,  whose  mirth  did  once  beguile 

Dull  hours,  and,  buskin' d,  made  even  sorrow  smile. 

So  lovely  were  the  wounds,  that  men  would  say 

They  could  endure  the  bleeding  a  whole  day. 

He  has  but  few  friends  lately:  think  of  that! 

He'll  come  no  more;  and  others  have  his  fate. 

Fletcher,  the  Muses'  darling,  and  choice  love 

Of  Phcebus,  the  delight  of  every  grove; 

Upon  whose  head  the  laurel  grew:  whose  wit 

If 'as  the  time's  wonder,  and  example  yet: 

'Tis  within  memory,  trees  did  not  throng, 

As  once  the  story  said,  to  Orpheus'  song. 

Jonsou,  t' whose  name  wise  art  did  bow,  and  wit 

Is  only  justified  by  honouring  it; 

To  hear  whose  touch,  how  would  the  learned  quire 
If  ii/i  silence  stoop!  and  when  he  took  his  lyre, 
Apollo  dropp'd  fiis  lute,  asham  d  to  see 

ft      i!  to  the  god  of  harmony : 

[■34: 


THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

You  do  forsake  him  too.    We  must  deplore 
This  fate;  for  we  do  know  it  by  our  door. 
How  must  this  Author  fear  then,  with  his  guilt 
Of  weakness,  to  thrive  here,  where  late  was  spilt 
The  Muses'  own  blood ;  if,  being  but  a  few, 
You  not  conspire,  and  meet  more  frequent  too? 
There  are  not  now  nine  Muses,  and  you  may 
Be  kind  to  ours.    If  not,  he  bad  me  say, 

Though  while  you  careless  kill  the  rest,  and  laugh, 
Yet  he  may  live  to  write  your  epitaph.100 

Thus  runs  the  prologue  of  the  last  play  of  Shirley 
acted  before  the  Civil  War:  "London  is  gone  to 
York" ;  but  the  poet  hopes  that  "yet  he  may  live  to 
write  your  epitaph."  Ten  years  later,  in  a  dedication 
addressed  to  William  Earl  of  Strafford,  son  of  the 
greater  Earl  of  Strafford— that  unhappy  minister  of 
an  unhappy  king— Shirley  described  the  catastrophe 
in  four  pregnant  words :  for  Shirley,  for  Shirley's  pa- 
tron, and  for  that  patron's  patron,  "the  stage  was 
interdicted."  101 

100  Works,  v,  356-357- 

101  Dedication  of  The  Court  Secret;  Works,  v,  428. 


[■35] 


CHAPTER  V 
SHIRLEY'S  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

i 642-1 666 

A  FTER  eighteen  brilliant  years  as  dramatist  to 
/  m  court  and  public,  Shirley,  at  the  age  of 
.X  m^  forty-six,  entered  upon  the  closing  period 
of  his  career— a  quarter  century  of  anticlimax:  cava- 
lier, schoolmaster,  literary  drudge.  For  his  life  as 
soldier,  our  sole  authority  is  Wood's  Athentz  Oxoni- 
enses.  This  account  may  well  be  as  inaccurate  as  it 
is  inadequate ;  but  it  is  all  we  have : 

When  the  rebellion  broke  out,  and  he  [was]  there- 
upon forced  to  leave  London,  and  so  consequently  his 
Wife  and  Children  (who  afterwards  were  put  to  their 
shifts) ,  he  was  invited  by  his  most  noble  Patron,  William, 
Earl  (afterwards  Marquess  and  Duke)  of  Newcastle,  to 
take  his  fortune  with  him  in  the  wars,  for  that  Count  had 
engaged  him  so  much  by  his  generous  liberality  toward 
him,  that  he  thought  he  could  not  do  a  worthier  act  than 
to  serve  him,  and  so  consequently  his  Prince.1 

1  Wood,  1691-1692,  n,  261 ;  cf.  1817,  in,  737. 

:>36] 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

This,  I  repeat,  is  all  that  we  know  of  Shirley's  soldier- 
ing; and  even  this  may  be  as  dubious  as  is  the  imagi- 
native account  in  Shiels's  Gibber's  Lives  of  the  Poets 
or  Gosse's  assertion  that  Shirley  accompanied  his  lord 
to  France.2  Ward,  to  be  sure,  insists  that  "the  lines 
To  Odelia3  certainly  imply  that  Shirley  took  per- 
sonal part  in  the  'war'  in  which  Newcastle  was  con- 
cerned from  November,  1642,  till  July,  1644,  when 
(after  Marston  Moor)  he  quitted  England."4  And 
Nissen,  who,  as  we  have  seen  before,  believes  in  a 
most  literal  interpretation  of  lyric  poetry,  declares 
that,  from  this  poem  To  Odelia,  we  learn  that  Shirley 
tarried  many  months  far  from  her  in  the  North;  and 
that  he  entreats  her  for  speedy  news,  for  "  'tis  far, 
and  many  accidents  do  wait  on  war." 5  Perhaps— but 
are  all  the  lyrics  of  the  Cavaliers  to  be  accounted 
autobiographic  documents?  If  so,  how  did  Shirley, 
in  his  Poems  of  1646,  venture  to  address  by  name  so 
many  mistresses?  What  did  Odelia  think?  What 
said  his  good  wife  Frances?  By  all  means,  let  us  re- 
turn to  our  Wood! 

After  the  Kings  cause  declined,  he  [Shirley]  retired 
obscurely  to  London,  where  among  other  of  his  noted 
friends,  he  found  Tho.  Stanley,  Esq.,  who  exhibited  to 

2  Introduction  to  the  Mermaid  Shirley,  xxvi. 
•  Works,  VI,  408. 

4  Ward,  in  DNB.,  LII,  128. 

5  Nissen,  p.  22. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

him  for  the  present.  Afterwards,  following  his  old  trade 
of  teaching  School,  which  was  mostly  in  the  White  Fryers, 
he  not  only  gained  a  comfortable  subsistence  (for  the 
acting  of  plays  was  then  silenced)  but  educated  many 
ingenious  youths,  who  afterwards  proved  most  eminent  in 
divers  faculties.6 

The  substantial  accuracy  of  these  assertions,  we 
need  not  question.  Shirley's  publications  for  the 
years  1646  and  1647  are  such  as  would  be  appropriate 
to  the  pensioner  of  Thomas  Stanley,  Esq. ;  his  pub- 
lications from  the  year  1649  onward,  include  several 
that  are  appropriate  to  a  schoolmaster;  and  in  Shir- 
ley's will  of  July,  1666,  which  I  shall  quote  later  in 
this  chapter,  he  describes  himself  as  "of  Whitef  riars, 
London,  gentleman." 

Shirley's  Poems  of  1646  is  a  small  octavo  volume  in 
three  parts,  paged  as  if  each  part  were  to  be  issued 
separately.    The  several  title-pages  read  : 

Poems  &c.  By  James  Shirley.  Sine  aliqua  dementia 
nullus  Phoebus.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Mose- 
ley,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  the  signe  of  the 
Princes  Armes  in  St.  Pauls  Church-yard.     1646. 

Narcissus,  or,  The  Self-Lover.  By  James  Shirley. 
I  I  see  olim-  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Moseley, 
and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  the  signe  of  the  Princes 
Armes  in  St.  Pauls  Church-yard.     MDCXLVI. 

Wood,  1691-1692,  ii,  261;  cf.  1817,  in,  737-738. 

C138] 


JAMES    SHIRLEY 
From  the  engraving  by  IV.  Marshall,  1646 


Y3JiUH2    2HMA[ 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

The  Trivmph  of  Beavtie.  As  it  was  personated  by 
some  young  Gentlemen,  for  whom  it  was  intended,  at  a 
private  Recreation.  By  James  Shirley.  London,  Printed 
for  Humphrey  Mosely,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop, 
at  the  Signe  of  the  Princes  Armes  in  St.  Pauls  Church- 
yard.   MDCXLVI.7 

Prefixed  to  the  first  of  these  divisions  is  a  portrait 
of  Shirley  framed  in  a  wreath  of  bay,  supported  by 
Tragedy  and  Comedy.  Beneath  it  are  engraved  the 
lines: 

Ha?c  summum  vatem  Shirleium  pingit  Imago; 

Solem  sic  reddit  debilis  umbra  suum : 
At  si  nativa  fulgentem  luce  videbis, 

Exhibet  en  propria  picta  Tabella  manu. 

The  engraving  is  signed  "W.  Marshall  sculpsit, 
1646."  Appended  to  this  division  of  the  volume  is 
the  following  "Postscript  to  the  Reader"  : 

I  had  no  intention  upon  the  birth  of  these  poems,  to 
let  them  proceed  to  the  public  view,  forbearing  in  my 
own  modesty  to  interpose  my  fancies,  when  I  see  the 
world  so  plentifully  furnished.  But  when  I  observed 
most  of  these  copies  corrupted  in  their  transcripts,  and 
the  rest  fleeting  from  me,  which  were  by  some  indiscreet 
collector,  not  acquainted  with  distributive  justice,  min- 
gled with   other  men's    (some   eminent)    conceptions   in 

7  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

print,  I  thought  myself  concerned  to  use  some  vindication, 
and  reduce  them  to  my  own,  without  any  pride  or  design 
of  deriving  opinion  from  their  worth,  but  to  shew  my 
charity,  that  other  innocent  men  should  not  answer  for  my 
vanities. 

If  thou  beest  courteous,  reader,  there  are  some  errors 
of  the  press  scattered,  which  thy  clemency  will  not  lay  to 
my  charge;  other  things  I  remit  to  thy  judgment:  if  thou 
beest  modest,  I  repent  not  to  have  exposed  them  and 
myself  to  thy  censure.    J.  S.8 

The  second  portion  of  the  volume— Narcissus,  or 
The  Self-Lover — is  supposed  to  be  identical  with  the 
poem  that  was  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  on 
January  4,  1617/18,  under  the  title:  Ecc[h]o  and 
Narcissus  the  2  unfortunate  lovers  written  by  Jeames 
Sherley.9  Paged  with  Narcissus  are  "Prologues  and 
Epilogues,  written  to  several  Plays  presented  in  this 
Kingdom  and  elsewhere." 

In  1647,  the  year  following  the  publication  of  his 

Poems,  we  have  a  further  glimpse  of  Shirley.    This 

time  the  retired  dramatist  appears  as  dramatic  critic 

-the  author  of  an  address  "To  the  Reader"  prefixed 

t<>  the  plays  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher: 

Comedies  and  Tragedies  Written  by  Francis  Beav- 
mont  And  lohn  Fletcher  Gentlemen.     Never  printed  be- 


•>S.  A'..  ,,,.  286. 


[f40] 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

fore,  And  now  published  by  the  Authours  Originall 
Copies.  Si  quid  habent  veri  Vatum  praesagia,  vivam. 
London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson,  at  the  three 
Pidgeons,  and  for  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Princes 
Armes  in  St  Pauls  Church-yard.     1647.11 

This  was  a  volume  of  no  small  importance.  For 
plays,  a  folio  was  still  a  rarity;  and  the  number  of 
commendatory  verses  goes  to  show  that,  as  a  literary 
undertaking,  it  was  accounted  notable.  That  the  tone 
of  Shirley's  introduction  should  be  cordial  was  inevi- 
table; but  that  it  was  sincere  as  well  we  need  not 
doubt:  from  Rare  Ben  Jonson,  the  "acknowledged 
master"  of  Shirley's  early  years,  he  had  long  since 
transferred  his  allegiance  to  these  romantic  drama- 
tists "whom  but  to  mention  is  to  throw  a  cloud  upon 
all  former  names  and  to  benight  posterity."12 

And  now,  reader  [says  Shirley],  in  this  tragical  age, 
where  the  theatre  has  been  so  much  out-acted,  congratu- 
late thy  own  happiness  that,  in  this  silence  of  the  stage, 
thou  hast  liberty  to  read  these  inimitable  plays,  to  dwell 
and  converse  in  these  immortal  groves.13 

Alas,  that  one  who  could  write  thus  of  his  predeces- 
sors in  romantic  drama  must  next  produce  a  Via  ad 
Latinam  Linguam  Complanata! 

11  From  the  copy  in  the  possession  of  Ernest  Dressel  North,  Esq. 

12  Ibid. 

13  Ibid. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

This  text-book  has  a  most  marvelous  frontispiece- 
title,  engraved  by  T.  Cross:  Grammatica  enthroned, 
and,  below  on  either  side,  Etymologia  and  Syntaxis. 
The  printed  title  reads : 

Via  ad  Latinam  Linguam  Complanata.  The  Way 
made  plain  to  the  Latine  Tongue.  The  Rules  composed  in 
English  and  Latine  Verse:  For  the  greater  Delight  and 
Benefit  of  Learners.  By  James  Shirley.  Avia  Pieridum 
peragro  loca.  Lucret.  London,  Printed  by  R.  W.  for 
John  Stephenson,  at  the  signe  of  the  Sun  on  Ludgate- 
Hill.     1649. 14 

Four  years  later,  in  1653,  Shirley  again  appears. 
In  this  year  he  published  Six  New  Playes,  a  volume 
which  included:  The  Doubtful  Heir,  licensed,  as 
Rosania,  June  1,  1640;  The  Imposture,  licensed  No- 
vember 10,  1640;  The  Brothers,  which  we  believe  to 
be  identical  with  The  Politique  Father,  licensed  May 
26,  1 641 ;  The  Cardinal,  licensed  November  25,  1641 ; 
The  Sisters,  licensed  April  26,  1642;  and  The  Court 
Secret,  "never  acted,  but  prepared  for  the  scene  at  the 
Black-Friers,"  1642.  The  title-page  of  this  volume 
bears,  as  the  date  of  publication,  the  year  16^3.  The 
title-pages  of  the  individual  plays,  however,  with  the 
exception  of  The  Court  Secret,  are  dated  not  1653 
but  1652.    They  are  as  follows: 

M  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Six  New  Playes,  Viz.  The  Brothers.  Sisters.  Doubt- 
full  Heir.  Imposture.  Cardinall.  Court  Secret.  The 
Five  first  were  acted  at  the  Private  House  in  Black  Fryers 
with  great  Applause.  The  last  was  never  Acted.  All 
Written  by  James  Shirley.  Never  printed  before.  Lon- 
don, Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the  Three  Pig- 
eons, and  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Armes  in 
St.  Paul's  Curch-yard.     1653.15 

The  Brothers,  A  Comedie,  As  It  was  Acted  at  the 
private  House  in  Black  Fryers.  Written  By  James  Shir- 
ley. Never  Printed  before.  London,  Printed  for  Hum- 
phrey Robinson  at  the  Three  Pigeons,  and  Humphrey 
Moseley  at  the  Prince  Armes  in  St.  Paul's  Church-yard. 
1652. 16 

The  Sisters,  A  Comedie,  As  It  was  acted  at  the  private 
House  in  Black  Fryers,  Written  By  James  Shirley.  Never 
Printed  before.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robin- 
son at  the  Three  Pigeons,  and  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the 
Prince's  Arms  in  St.  Paul's  Church-yard.     1652.17 

The  Doubtful  Heir.  A  Tragi-comedie,  As  It  was 
Acted  at  the  private  House  in  Black  Friers,  Written  By 
James  Shirley.  Never  Printed  before.  London,  Printed 
for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the  three  Pigeons,  and  Hum- 
phrey Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Arms  in  St.  Paul's  Church- 
yard.    1652. 1S 


15  From  the  copv  belonging  to  the  present  writer. 

16  Ibid. 

17  Ibid. 

18  Ibid. 


C143  3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

The  Impostvre  A  Tragi-Comedie,  As  It  was  Acted  at 
the  private  House  in  Black  Fryers.  Written  By  James 
Shirley.  Never  Printed  before.  London,  Printed  for 
Humphrey  Robinson  at  the  Three  Pigeons,  and  Hum- 
phrey Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Armes  in  St.  Paul's  Curch- 
yard.     1652. 19 

The  Cardinal,  A  Tragedie,  As  It  was  acted  at  the 
private  House  in  Black  Fryers,  Written  By  James  Shirley. 
Not  Printed  before.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Rob- 
inson at  the  Three  Pigeons,  and  Humphrey  Moseley  at 
the  Prince's  Arms  in  St.  Paul's  Church-yard.     1652.20 

The  Court  Secret,  A  Tragi-comedy :  Never  Acted,  But 
prepared  for  the  Scene  at  Black-Friers.  Written  By 
James  Shirley.  Never  printed  before.  London,  Printed 
for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the  three  Pigeons,  and  for 
Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Armes  in  Saint  Paul's 
Church-yard,  1653.21 

Appended  to  The  Cardinal  in  this  volume  of  Six 
New  Playes,  is  "A  Catalogue  of  the  Authors  Poems 
Already  Printed."  It  includes  all  of  his  published 
works  up  to  that  time  except,  strangely,  The  Young 
Admiral  and  The  Arcadia.  Also  unmentioned  are 
three  of  the  Six  New  Playes— The  Doubtful  Heir, 
The  Cardinal,  and  The  Court  Secret;  two  plays  sub- 
sequently published  —  The  Politician,  and  The  Gen- 

19  Prom  the  copy  belonging  to  the  present  writer. 
10  Ibid. 
Ibid. 

CI44] 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

tleman  of  Venice;  and  certain  minor  pieces.22  A  simi- 
lar list  of  publications  was  appended,  as  the  reader 
may  recall,  to  The  Maid's  Revenge,  1639. 

To  this  same  year,  1653,  belong  also  both  the  act- 

22  This   list   of   publications    appended    to    The    Cardinal    reads    as 
follows: 

"A  CATALOGUE  OF  THE  AUTHORS  POEMS  ALREADY 

PRINTED 

Tragedies 
The  Traytour 

Philip  Chabot  Admirall  of  France 
Loves  Cruelty 
The  Maids  Revenge 
Dukes  Mistris 
The  Cardinal 

Comedies  and  Tragi-comedies 
The  School  of  Complement 
The  Lady  of  Pleasure 
Hide-parke 
The  Constant  Maid 

*The  Coronation  *  Falsely  as. 

The  Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze  cribed  to 

The  Gratefull  Servant  Jo-  Fletcher. 

The  Patron  of  Ireland 
The  Humorous  Court[ier] 
The  Wedding 

The  Ball,  or  French  Dancing  Master 
The  Gamester 
The  Example 
The  Bird  in  a  cage 
The  Royall  Master 
The  Opportunity 
The  Witty  Fair  one 
The  Imposture 
The  Brothers 
The  Sisters 

A  Masque  of  the  four  Honorable  Innes  of  Court,  presented  before 
the  King  and  Queens  Majesty  at  Whitehall  in  the  Banqueting  house. 
Poems." 

CI45  3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ing  and  the  publication  of  Shirley's  Cupid  and  Death. 
Its  title  reads: 

Cvpid  and  Death.  A  Masque.  As  it  was  Presented 
before  his  Excellence,  The  Embassadour  of  Portugal, 
Upon  the  26.  of  March,  1653.  Written  by  J.  S.  Lon- 
don :  Printed  according  to  the  Authors  own  Copy,  by 
T.  W.  for  J.  Crook,  &  J.  Baker,  at  the  Sign  of  the  Ship  in 
St.  Pauls  Church-Yard,  1653.23 

The  last  plays  that  Shirley  printed  appeared  two 
years  later,  in  1655.  These  were  The  Politician  and 
The  Gentleman  of  Venice,  both  of  which,  according 
to  their  title-pages,  had  been  presented  at  Salisbury 
Court  by  her  Majesty's  Servants.  The  Gentleman  of 
Venice,  as  we  noticed  above,  had  been  licensed  for 
presentation  on  October  30,  1639.  Later,  according 
to  Shirley's  dedication,  "it  lost  itself,  till  it  was  re- 
covered after  much  inquisition."24  This  passage 
means,  I  take  it,  that  either  because  Shirley  had 
ceased  to  write  for  the  players  of  Salisbury  Court,  or 
because  of  the  closing  of  the  theaters,  or  perhaps 
merely  because  the  Queen's  men  insisted  upon  their 
rights  of  ownership,  Shirley  was  long  unable  to  re- 
gain possession  of  the  play.  Such  may  have  been  the 
history  also  of  The  Politician,  published,  like  The 

i  rom  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum. 
"'  Works,  v,  3. 

[146:] 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Gentleman  of  Venice,  by  Humphrey  Moseley,  in 
1655,  and,  like  that  play,  ascribed  on  its  title-page  to 
her  Majesty's  Servants  of  Salisbury  Court.  Of  the 
licensing  of  The  Politician,  we  have  no  record;  but 
this  may  be  the  fault  of  Malone's  transcript  rather 
than  the  laxity  of  Manager  Turner  or  of  Sir  Henry 
Herbert.  The  ill-advised  attempt  to  identify  this 
play  with  The  Politique  Father,  I  have  sufficiently 
discussed  in  connection  with  The  Brothers  of  1626. 
In  respect  to  its  publication,  it  was,  as  Shirley  prophe- 
sied in  his  dedication,  "the  last"  of  his  plays  "to  salute 
the  public  view."25  The  title-pages  of  these  two 
plays  read  thus : 

The  Gentleman  of  Venice  A  Tragi-Comedie  Pre- 
sented at  the  Private  house  in  Salisbury  Court  by  her 
Majesties  Servants.  Written  by  James  Shirley.  London, 
Printed  for  Humphrey  Moseley  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his 
Shop  at  the  Princes  Armes  in  St.  Pauls  Church-yard. 
1655.26 

The  Polititian,  A  Tragedy,  Presented  at  Salisbury 
Court  By  Her  Majesties  Servants;  Written  By  James 
Shirley.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Moseley  and 
are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  at  the  Princes  Armes  in  St. 
Pauls  Church-yard.     1655.27 

25  Works,  v,  91. 

26  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  present  writer. 

27  Ibid. 

D47:i 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Shirley's  second  Latin  text-book  appeared  in  1656, 
and  was  reissued  under  a  new  title  in  1660.  The  two 
title-pages  read: 

The  Rudiments  of  Grammar.  The  Rules  Composed 
in  English  Verse,  For  The  greater  Benefit  and  delight  of 
young  Beginners.  By  James  Shirley.  Vtile  dulci.  Lon- 
don, Printed  by  J.  Macock  for  R.  Lownds,  and  are  to  be 
sold  at  his  shop  at  the  white  Lyon  in  Paul's  Church-Yard, 
1656.28 

Manductio:  or,  A  leading  of  Children  by  the  Hand 
Through  the  Principles  of  Grammar.  The  second  Edi- 
tion, Enlarged.  By  Ja :  Shirley.  Perveniri  ad  summum 
nisi  ex  principiis  non  potest.  London,  Printed  for  Richard 
Lowndes,  at  the  White-Lion  in  S.  Pauls  Church-Yard. 
1660.29 

Of  greater  interest  is  the  little  volume  of  1659  con- 
taining Honoria  and  Mammon  and  The  Contention 
of  Ajax  and  Ulysses  for  the  Armor  of  Achilles.  The 
title-pages  of  the  volume  and  of  the  parts  read  thus : 

Honoria  and  Mammon.  Written  by  James  Shirly 
Gent.  Scene  Metropolis,  or  New-Troy.  Whereunto  is 
added  the  Contention  of  Ajax  and  Ulisses,  for  the  Ar- 
mour of  Achilles.  As  it  was  represented  by  young  Gen- 
tlemen of  quality  at  a  private  entertainment  of  some  Per- 


om  tin-  copy  in  the  British  Museum. 

•  '  I  hid. 


[148] 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

sons  of  Honour.  London,  Printed  for  John  Crook,  and 
are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  the  signe  of  the  Ship  in  S. 
Pauls  Church-yard,  1659.30 

Honoria  and  Mammon.  Written  by  James  Shirley 
[Three  lines  in  Latin.]  London,  Printed  by  T.  W.  for 
John  Crook,  at  the  sign  of  the  ship  in  S.  Pauls  Church- 
yard.    [n.d.]31 

The  Contention  of  Ajax  and  Ulysses,  for  the  Armor 
of  Achilles.  As  It  was  nobly  represented  by  young  Gen- 
tlemen of  quality,  at  a  private  Entertainment  of  some  per- 
sons of  Honour.  Written  By  James  Shirley.  London, 
Printed  for  John  Crook,  at  the  sign  of  the  ship  in  S.  Pauls 
Church-yard.     [n.  d.]; 


132 


The  Contention  of  Ajax  and  Ulysses  is  especially 
to  be  remembered  for  containing  that  noble  dirge 
that  seems  destined  for  all  time  to  represent  the  work 
of  Shirley  in  our  anthologies:  the  poem  beginning, 

The  glories  of  our  blood  and  state 
Are  shadows,  not  substantial  things. 

Spoken  as  it  is  by  Calchas  to  the  six  princes,  Aga- 
memnon, Diomedes,  Menelaus,  Thersander,  Nestor, 
and  Ulysses,  as  they  bear  the  body  of  Ajax  to  the  tem- 
ple, the  poem  is  especially  affecting: 

30  From  the  copies  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

31  Ibid.  32  Ibid. 

CJ493 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

The  glories  of  our  blood  and  state 

Are  shadows,  not  substantial  things; 
There  is  no  armour  against  fate ; 
Death  lays  his  icy  hand  on  kings  : 
Scepter  and  crown 
Must  tumble  down, 
And  in  the  dust  be  equal  made 
With  the  poor  crooked  scythe  and  spade. 

Some  men  with  swords  may  reap  the  field 
And  plant  fresh  laurels  where  they  kill ; 
But  their  strong  nerves  at  last  must  yield; 
They  tame  but  one  another  still : 
Early  or  late 
They  stoop  to  fate, 
And  must  give  up  their  murmuring  breath, 
When  they,  pale  captives,  creep  to  death. 

The  garlands  wither  on  your  brow. 

Then  boast  no  more  your  mighty  deeds; 
Upon  Death's  purple  altar  now, 

See,  where  the  victor-victim  bleeds: 
Your  heads  must  come 
To  the  cold  tomb; 
Only  the  actions  of  the  just 
Smell  sweet,  and  blossom  in  their  dust. 

In  the  library  of  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq.,  were 
three  copies  of  this  volume,  in  one  of  which  occurred 
the  rare  engraving  of  Shirley  dated  1658.  It  shows 
head  and  shoulders  mounted  upon  a  pedestal:  dark 


LacoEus  Shi  rise  us  : 


JAMES    SHIRLEY 
G  Phenik  pinx :  R.  Gaywood  fecit  1658 


Y3J.HIH2    23MA[ 
&^<ii  Yro\  V>oowQbT)  ft.  :xn\<\  &v&#\  .t) 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

skull-cap,  wavy  black  hair  falling  upon  a  soft  white 
collar,  round  face,  scant  light  mustache,  conspicuous 
eyes.  Clearly  emblazoned  in  the  upper  left-hand  cor- 
ner, a  shield  displays  the  arms  of  the  Warwick  Shir- 
leys,  but  differenced  with  a  crescent:  paly  of  six,  pre- 
sumably or  and  azure,  a  quarter  ermine.33  Beneath 
the  bust  appear  the  words:  "Jacobus  Shirlaeus:  G. 
Phenik  pinx:  R.  Gaywood  fecit  1658." 

The  similarity  of  this  engraving  to  the  oil  portrait 
of  Shirley  in  the  Bodleian,  was  noted  by  Dyce  in 
1833.  This  painting,  which  has  been  but  inaccurately 
copied  by  Lupton  in  the  engraving  prefixed  to  the 
first  volume  of  Shirley's  Dramatic  Works,  shows 
Shirley  seated  in  a  massive  chair,  leaning  slightly 
upon  his  right  elbow  with  his  right  hand  at  his  cheek. 
It  shows  the  same  black  skull-cap,  the  same  flowing 
hair — or  wig— the  same  soft  white  collar,  the  same 
scant  light  mustache  (not  black,  as  Lupton  makes  it) , 
and  the  same  fine  eyes,  as  in  the  Phenik-Gaywood 
portrait.  Clearly  the  two  pictures  belong  to  the  same 
period  of  Shirley's  life,  even  if  they  be  not  more 
vitally  related.34 

33  A  student  familiar  only  with  the  modern  method  of  engraving 
arms,  might  read  this  shield  "paly  of  six  azure  and  argent" ;  for  the 
odd  pales  are  shaded  horizontally  and  the  even  pales  are  without  line 
or  dot.  That  such  is  the  significance  of  the  lines,  however,  is  most 
unlikely.  The  modern  method  of  indicating  tinctures  in  black  and 
white,  was  very  new  in  England  in  1658. 

34  Cf.  Dyce's  note  in  Works,  1,  Iviii. 

C1513 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Shirley's  few  remaining  publications  may  be 
chronicled  in  a  paragraph.  In  1657,  the  unsold 
sheets  of  The  Constant  Maid  and  St.  Patrick  for  Ire- 
land, of  1640,  were  reissued  with  new  title-pages.  In 
1659,  was  reprinted  Shirley's  Cupid  and  Death  of 
1653.  The  Wedding  and,  according  to  Ward,  The 
Grateful  Servant™  were  reprinted  in  1660;  The 
Xight  Walker,  in  166 1.  In  the  latter  year,  The  Con- 
stant Maid  appeared  for  a  third  time,  but  with  the 
unexpected  title-page: 

Love  will  finde  out  the  Way.  An  Excellent  Comedy. 
By  T.  B.  As  it  was  Acted  with  great  Applause,  by  Her 
Majesties  Servants,  at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury  Lane.  Lon- 
don:  Printed  by  Ja :  Cottrel,  for  Samuel  Speed,  at  the 
Signe  of  the  Printing-Press  in  St.  Paul's  Church-yard. 
1661.36 

The  play  appeared  a  fourth  time  in  1667,  but  under 
a  combination  title:  "The  Constant  Maid:  or,  Love 
will  finde  out  the  Way.  .  .  .  By  J.  £."37  Thus  ends 
the  list. 

We  have,  however,  from  the  pen  of  Wood,  one 
further  note  upon  the  work  of  Shirley: 

'•Ward,  in  DNB.t  LII,  130,  gives  this  date,  but  with  a  question- 
mark,  borrowed,  perhaps,  from  the  catalogue  of  the  British  Museum. 

•  From  the  title-page  of  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoc, 
Esq. 

i  mm  the  i-opy  in  the  British  Museum. 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

Our  author  Shirley  did  also  much  assist  his  generous 
Patrone  William,  Duke  of  Newcastle,  in  the  composure  of 
certain  Plays  which  the  Duke  afterwards  published;  and 
was  a  Drudge  for  John  Ogilby  in  his  translation  of 
Homers  Iliads  and  Odysses,  and  some  of  Virgils  works, 
into  English  verse,  with  the  writing  of  annotations  on 
them.38 

Of  the  accuracy  of  these  statements  we  have  no 
proof;  but  we  know  that  the  year  1649— in  which 
Ogilby  published  the  first  edition  of  his  Virgil — was 
the  year  in  which  Ogilby  contributed  complimentary 
verses  to  Shirley's  Via  ad  Latinam  Linguam  Com- 
planata.  We  remember  also  the  statement  made  by 
Wood  that,  in  preparation  for  his  translation  of  the 
Iliad,  1660,  and  of  the  Odyssey,  1665,  Ogilby  studied 
Greek  under  Shirley's  usher,  David  Whitford.  Con- 
cerning Shirley's  relation  to  the  plays  of  William, 
Duke  of  Newcastle,  the  only  evidence  is  the  presence 
of  a  catch,  "Come,  let  us  throw  the  dice,"39  both  in 
Shirley's  Poems,  1646,  and  in  Newcastle's  comedy, 
The  Country  Captain. 

In  the  years  immediately  following  the  Restora- 
tion, the  work  of  Shirley  was  again  upon  the  stage. 
As  Wood  expresses  it, 

After  his  Majesties  return  to  his  Kingdoms,  several  of 

38  Wood,  1691-1692,  11,  262;  cf.  1817,  in,  739-740. 
30  Works,  vi,  439. 

C'53] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

his  [Shirley's]  plays  which  he  before  had  made,  were 
acted  with  good  applause,  but  what  office  or  employ  he 
had  confer'd  upon  him  after  all  his  sufferings,  I  cannot 
now  justly  tell.40 

In  both  of  these  assertions,  the  modern  biographer 
has  only  to  concur  with  Wood.  Of  office  or  employ- 
ment conferred  on  Shirley  "after  all  his  sufferings," 
we  have  no  evidence.  Possibly  the  aged  dramatist 
was  still,  as  in  1639,  unable  to  affect  "the  ways  of  flat- 
tery."41 Possibly,  at  the  age  of  sixty-four,  he  was  in- 
different. We  have,  however,  ample  evidence  of  the 
revival  of  the  plays  of  Shirley  on  the  London  stage. 
In  a  list  of  the  plays  presented  by  the  Red  Bull  actors, 
1 660-1 663,  quoted  by  Malone,42  appear  The  Traitor 
and  Love's  Cruelty;  and  in  a  list  which,  according  to 
Malone,  "appears  to  have  been  made  by  Sir  Henry 
Herbert  in  order  to  enable  him  to  ascertain  the  fees 
due  to  him,  whenever  he  should  establish  his 
claims,"43  we  find:  "1660.  .  .  .  Tuesday  the  6  Nov. 
The  Tray  tor  .  .  .  Thursday  the  15  Nov.  Loves 
Cruelty  .  .  .  Thursday  the  22  Nov.  The  Traytor 
.  .  .  Monday  the  26  Nov.  The  Opportunity.  .  .  . 
1662.  .  .  .  May   17,  Love  in  a  Maze.  .  .  .  July  6. 

*"  Wood,  1691-1692,  ii,  261 ;  cf.  1817,  in,  739. 

41  Dedication  to  The  Maid's  Revenge;  Works,  I,  ioi. 

42  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  272-273. 
Ibid.,  273. 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

The    Brothers.   .   .   .  July    23.       The    Cardinal!."44 
Pepys,  in  his  diary  for  October  10,  1661,  records: 

Sir  W.  Pen,  and  my  wife  and  I,  to  the  Theatre,  .  .  . 
where  the  King  came  to-day,  and  there  was  The  Traytor, 
most  admirably  acted;  and  a  most  excellent  play  it  is. 

And  again,  October  2,  1662,  he  writes : 

At  night,  .  .  .  hearing  that  there  was  a  play  at  the 
Cockpit,  (and  my  Lord  Sandwich,  who  came  to  town  last 
night,  at  it),  I  do  go  thither,  and  by  very  great  fortune 
did  follow  four  or  five  gentlemen  who  were  carried  to  a 
little  private  door  in  the  wall,  and  so  crept  through  a 
narrow  place,  and  come  into  one  of  the  boxes  next  the 
King's,  but  so  as  I  could  not  see  the  King  or  Queen,  but 
many  of  the  fine  ladies,  who  yet  are  not  really  so  hand- 
some generally  as  I  used  to  take  them  to  be,  but  that  they 
are  finely  dressed.  Here  we  saw  The  Cardinall,  a  trag- 
edy I  had  never  seen  before,  nor  is  there  any  great  matter 
in  it.  The  company  that  came  in  with  me  into  the  box 
were  all  Frenchmen  that  could  speak  no  English:  but, 
Lord !  what  sport  they  made  to  ask  a  pretty  lady  that  they 
got  among  them,  that  understood  both  French  and  Eng- 
lish, to  make  her  tell  them  what  the  actors  said. 

These  two  plays,  The  Traitor  and  The  Cardinal,  to- 
gether with   The   Opportunity,   The  Example,   and 

44  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  273-276. 

C'55] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Love  in  a  Maze,  are  mentioned  by  John  Downes,  in 
his  Roscius  Anglicanus,  as  among  the  plays  acted  at 
the  New  Theater  in  Drury-Lane  in  1663  : 

These  being  Old  Plays  [he  writes],  were  Acted  but 
now  and  then;  yet,  being  well  Perform'd,  were  very  Satis- 
factory to  the  Town.45 

The  next  mention  of  a  play  by  Shirley  occurs  in 
Pepys's  diary  for  August  18,  1664: 

Dined  alone  at  home,  my  wife  going  to-day  to  dine 
with  Mrs.  Pierce,  and  thence  with  her  and  Mrs.  Clerke 
to  see  a  new  play,  The  Court  Secret.  .  .  .  My  wife  says, 
the  play  she  saw  is  the  worst  that  ever  she  saw  in  her  life. 

In  1666,  Downes  thus  resumes  the  record: 

After  this  the  Company  [of  Sir  William  Davenant,  in 
Lincoln's  Inn  Fields]  Reviv'd  Three  Comedies  of  Mr. 
Sherly's  viz.  The  Grateful  Servant,  The  Witty  Fair  One, 
The  School  of  Complements.  .  .  .  These  Plays  being 
perfectly  well  Perform'd;  especially  Dulcino  the  Grateful 
Servant,  being  Acted  by  Mrs.  Long;  and  the  first  time  she 
appear' d  in  Man's  Habit,  prov'd  as  Beneficial  to  the  Com- 
pany, as  several  new  Plays.46 

Upon  one  of  these  plays,  the  comment  of  Pepys, 
August  5,  1667,  is  not  quite  so  favorable: 

Downi      Roscius  Anglicanus,  1708;  reprint  of  1886,  p.  9. 
wIbid.,  p.  27. 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

To  the  Duke  of  York's  house,  and  there  saw  Love's 
Trickes,  or  the  School  of  Compliments ;  a  silly  play,  only 
Mis's  [Davis's]  dancing  in  a  shepherd's  clothes  did  please 
us  mightily. 

The  lines  just  quoted  have  taken  us  a  year  beyond 
the  death  of  Shirley;  but  I  insert  here  two  more  pas- 
sages from  Pepys,  the  first  from  his  diary  for  Decem- 
ber 30,  1667,  the  second,  an  entry  for  July  11,  1668: 

Thence  with  Sir  Philip  Carteret  to  the  King's  play 
house,  there  to  see  Love's  Cruelty,  an  old  play,  but  which 
I  have  not  seen  before;  and  in  the  first  act  Orange  Moll 
came  to  me  ...  to  tell  me  that  ...  I  was  desired  to 
come  home.  So  I  went  out  presently,  and  by  coach  home, 
and  .  .  .  after  a  very  little  stay  with  my  wife,  I  took 
coach  again,  and  to  the  King's  playhouse  again,  and  come 
in  the  fourth  act :  and  it  proves  to  me  a  very  silly  play,  and 
to  everybody  else,  as  far  as  I  could  judge. 

To  the  King's  playhouse,  to  see  an  old  play  of  Shirly's, 
called  Hide  Parke;  the  first  day  acted;  where  horses  are 
brought  upon  the  stage :  but  it  is  but  a  very  moderate  play, 
only  an  excellent  epilogue  spoke  by  Beck  Marshall. 

The  foregoing  list  of  Shirleian  revivals  recorded  by 
Pepys  and  by  Downes,  we  may  supplement  from  two 
title-pages  of  the  year  1667:  The  Constant  Maid:  or, 
Love  will  finde  out  the  Way  .  .  .  As  it  is  now  Acted 
at  the  new  Play-house  called  the  Nursery,  in  Hatton- 

['57  3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Garden  ...  ;47  and  Love  Tricks,  or,  the  School  of 
Complements;  As  it  is  now  acted  by  his  Royal  High- 
nesse  The  Duke  of  York's  Servants  At  the  Theatre  in 
Little  Lincolns-Inne  Fields}9  Evidently  Wood's 
assertion  that  "several  of  Shirley's  plays  .  .  .  were 
acted  with  good  applause,"  has  some  foundation. 

Concerning  the  family  of  Shirley  and  his  worldly 
estate  in  his  declining  years,  his  will  of  July,  1666, 
preserved  at  Somerset  House,  bears  interesting  wit- 
ness. As  this  document  has  not  heretofore  appeared 
in  print,  I  quote  it  here  entire.  The  blank  spaces 
were  left  unfilled  in  the  original: 

I,  James  Shirley  of  White  Fryers,  London,  gentleman, 
being  of  perfect  mind  and  memory,  Doe  make  and  declare 
this  my  last  Will  and  Testament  in  the  manner  and  forme 
following. 

First,  I  resigne  my  Soule  into  the  hands  of  Almighty 
God,  my  Creator,  with  full  beliefe  to  have  remission  of  all 
my  Sinnes  by  the  Meritts,  death,  and  Passion  of  my  Re- 
deemer Jesus  Christ. 

My  body  I  remitt  to  the  earth  to  be  decently  buried 
according  to  the  Discretion  of  my  Executor  hereafter 
named. 

\s  to  the  Disposition  of  my  worldly  estate,  I  give  and 
bequeath  the  same  (my  Debts,  if  any  shall  appeare,  and 
funeral]  Charges  first  defraid)  as  followeth : 

I  mm  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum.     Sec  Bihliography. 
"  Ibid. 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

I  give  and  bequeath  to  my  eldest  Son,  Mathias  Shir- 
ley, 20o£  Sterl.  to  bee  paid  him  within  six  moneths  after 
my  Decease.  I  likewise  give  him  my  Cornelian  seald 
ring,  my  silver  watch,  and  my  best  wearing  clothes. 

I  give  and  bequeath  to  my  son  Christopher  Shirley 
ioo£  to  be  paid  him  likewise  within  6  monthes  after  my 
decease. 

I  give  and  bequeath  to  my  son  James  Shirley  the  some 
of  i5o£  Sterl.  to  bee  paid  him  within  6  monthes  as  afore- 
said. 

I  give  and  bequeath  to  my  Daughter  Mary,  now  wife 
of  Standerdine  Shirley,  ah.  Sachell,  the  some  of  20o£ 
Sterl.  to  bee  paid  as  aforesaid.  I  alsoe  give  her  a  Silver 
Tanckard  marked. 

I  give  unto  Standerdine  above  named  One  gold  ring 
with  fine  Turkey  stones,  and  I  doe  release  and  forgive 
to  him  a  Debt  of  Fifty  pounds  which  I  lent  him  upon  his 
Bond  dated  [  ]. 

I  give  and  bequeath  to  my  Daughter  Lawrinda,  the 
Relict  of  Howard  Fountaine,  the  some  of  Two  Hundred 
pounds.     Item.     I  give  to  her  my  little  Diamond. 

I  give  and  bequeath  to  George  Shirley,  als.  Sachell,  son 
of  the  said  Standerdine  and  Mary,  the  sume  of  Thirty 
pounds  to  bee  paid  as  above  said. 

I  give  and  Bequeath  to  my  worthy  friend  Mr.  John 
Warter  of  the  Inner  Temple,  the  sume  of  ]. 

I  give  to  Mistris  Warter,  wife  of  the  said  Mr.  John 
Warter,  to  buy  her  a  Ring  [  ]. 

I  give  to  Mr.  George  Warter,  sonne  of  the  said  Mr. 
John  [  ]  the  sume  of  (  ]. 

[159] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

I  give  to  Mr.  Vincent  Cane,  my  loveing  friend,  the 
surne  of  Twenty  pounds  to  be  Disposed  by  him  according 
to  a  former  agreement  betwixt  Us. 

And  I  doe  by  this  my  will,  give  and  bequeath  unto  my 
loveing  wife,  Frances  Shirley,  all  the  Remainder  of  my 
Estate,  Specialtyes,  plate,  moneys,  Jewells,  Linnen,  Wool- 
len Bedding,  brass,  Pewter,  or  goods  of  any  Kind  what- 
soever, my  debts  and  Legacyes  being  first  paid,  in  con- 
fidence that  shee  wilbe  kind  to  my  Children,  and  at  her 
Death,  if  it  shall  please  God  that  any  of  them  Survive 
her,  I  doubt  not  but  that  shee  will  leave  upon  them  some 
Testimony  of  her  love  for  my  sake. 

And  I  doe  hereby  nominate,  Constitute,  and  appoint 
my  said  loveing  wife,  Frances  Shirley,  Executrix  of  this 
my  last  Will  and  Testament. 

In  Witness  whereof  I  have  subscribed  my  name  and 
affixed  my  Seale,  the  [  ]  Day  of  July  Anno  Dm  1 666, 

And  in  the  Eighteenth  yeare  of  the  Raigne  of  our  Sover- 
aigne  Lord,  King  Charles  the  Second. 

James  Shirley. 

Signed,    Sealed,    and    published    in    the    presence    of 

[  ]-49 

The  will  of  Shirley,  July,  1666,  brings  us  to  the 

n  Prerogative  Court  of  Canterbury  [Somerset  House],  Mico,  folio 
170.    The  will  bears  the  following  endorsement: 

"\  November  1666  commission  issued  to  Mary  Poulton,  wife  of 
Richard  Poulton,  daughter  of  the  sister  of  Frances  Sherley  deceased, 
while  she  lived  relict  and  executrix  named  in  the  will  of  the  testator 
James  Shirley,  late  of  White  Fryers,  London,  but  deceased  in  the 
parish  of  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  co.  Middlesex,  to  administer  the 
'.of  the  said  James  Shirley,  the  said  Frances  having  died 
c  talcing  upon  her  the  execution  of  the  above  will." 


THE  POST-DRAMATIC   PERIOD 

record  of  his  death  in  October  of  the  same  year;  but 
before  we  make  this  final  entry,  it  is  fitting  that  we 
summarize  our  chapter  on  Shirley's  Post-dramatic 
Period. 

Although  this  chapter  covers  a  period  of  twenty- 
four  years,  from  1642  to  1666,  its  content  may  be 
briefly  stated.  We  have  noted  the  probability  that 
Shirley  served  with  Newcastle  in  the  Civil  War,  and 
that  he  was  pensioner  to  Thomas  Stanley,  Esq.,  and 
literary  collaborator  with  Newcastle  and  with 
Ogilby.  We  have  noted  that  he  was  a  successful 
schoolmaster  in  Whitefriars.  We  have  chronicled 
the  publication  of  his  Poems,  his  Via  ad  Latinam 
Linguam  Complanata,  his  Six  Nete  PI  ayes,  his 
Cupid  and  Death,  The  Politician,  The  Gentleman  of 
Venice,  and  his  Honoria  and  ^Mammon  and  The 
Contention  of  Ajax  and  Ulysses.  We  have  noted  and 
described  the  engraving  of  Shirley  by  W.  Marshall. 
1646;  the  oil  portrait  in  the  Bodleian;  and  the 
Phenik-Gaywood  engraving,  1658.  We  have  quoted 
from  Herbert,  from  Pepys,  and  from  Downes,  the 
record  of  Shirleian  revivals  after  1660.  Finally,  from 
the  records  of  the  Prerogative  Court  of  Canterbury, 
we  have  reproduced  in  full  the  will  of  Shirley,  a 
document  not  previously  in  print. 

In  September,  1666,  some  two  months  after  Shirley 
made  his  will,  occurred  the  Great  Fire  of  London. 

[161] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Of  the  misfortunes  that  it  brought  upon  Shirley  and 
his  wife  Frances,  Wood  shall  speak: 

At  length,  after  Mr.  Shirley  had  lived  to  the  age  of 
72  years  at  least  [Wood  should  have  written  "seventy" 
in  various  conditions,  and  had  seen  much  of  the  world,  he 
with  his  second  Wife,  Frances,  were  driven  by  the  dismal 
conflagration  that  hapned  in  London  an.  1666,  from 
their  habitation  near  to  Fleetstreet,  into  the  Parish  of  St. 
Giles  in  the  Fields  in  Middlesex;  where,  being  in  a  man- 
ner overcome  with  affrightments,  disconsolations,  and 
other  miseries  occasion'd  by  that  fire  and  their  losses,  they 
both  died  within  the  compass  of  a  natural  day :  whereupon 
their  bodies  were  buried  in  one  grave  in  the  yard  belong- 
ing to  the  said  Church  of  S.  Giles's  on  the  29  of  Octob. 
in  sixteen  hundred  sixty  and  six.50 

In  the  register  of  burials  of  "St.  Giles  in  ye  Fields, 
1638-68,"  occurs  the  following  entry: 

October  1666. 

\  Mr.  James  Sherley. 

^  Mris.  Frances  Sherley  his  wife. 

80  Wood,  1691-1692,  ii,  262;  cf.  1817,  in,  740. 


c^: 


23MA[.MM"    3  0    JAIflUa    3HT    HO    QAODZX 

83DWA5I3   .2  I  AM"    3  0    OMA    "Y3Jii3H2 

"33  I  W    81  H    Y3J513H2 


RECORD    OF    THE    BURIAL    OF    "MR.  JAMES 

SHERLEY"    AND    OF    "MRIS.  FRANCES 

SHERLEY    HIS    WIFE" 

From  the  Register  of  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  October  2g,  1666 


Jl 


■/< 


6ft 


^ICVSmvUx- 


L 

14 
(4 
14 

h 
h 

H 
IS 

-2-1 

2.Z. 

-»  -> 

2.1 

i4- 
=4 

n 


i^rUv..    ff-o*\»f«vvu, 


,M& 


"1 


£U     'JkwM^ 


» 
! 

2. 

*7 


^./ 


^.\*w,     ^^  7W" 
r/-'*-  CL  vvcv      *\^)  & VVVt  »rxr 


S&   f£o 


~f 


-_ 


PART  II 
THE  PLAYS  OF  SHIRLEY 


THE   FIRST 

DRAMATIC   PERIOD 


CHRONOLOGY  OF  PLAYS 

FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

i 625-1 632 

1624/5,  February  10.  Love  Tricks,  with  Comple- 
ments licensed.  Subsequently  published  as  The 
School  of  Complement. 

1625/6,  February  9.     The  Maid's  Revenge  licensed. 

1626,  May  31.  The  Wedding  (according  to  the  hy- 
pothesis of  Fleay)  acted. 

1626,  November  4.  The  Brothers  licensed.  A  lost 
work,  to  be  identified  neither  with  The  Brothers 
of  1652  nor  with  Dicke  of  Devonshire. 

1628,  October  3.    The  Witty  Fair  One  licensed. 

1629,  November  3.  The  Faithful  Servant  licensed. 
Subsequently  published  as  The  Grateful  Servant. 

1 63 1,  May  4.     The  Traitor  licensed. 
1 63 1,  May  17.     The  Duke  licensed.     Subsequently 
published  as  The  Humorous  Courtier. 

1 63 1,  November  14.    Love's  Cruelty  licensed. 
1631/2,  January  10.     The  Changes  licensed.    Subse- 
quently published  as  Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze. 

[632,  April  20.    Hyde  Park  licensed. 

1632,  November  16.    The  Ball  licensed. 


[166:] 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-BEGUN 

FROM  LOVE  TRICKS  TO  THE  WEDDING 

FROM  our  examination  of  the  life  of  Shirley, 
we  pass  now  to  a  consideration  of  his  dra- 
matic works  and  of  his  development  as  a 
dramatist.  Our  endeavor,  in  the  five  chapters  just 
concluded,  has  been  to  weigh  anew  the  evidence  con- 
cerning his  career,  and  thereby  to  establish,  with 
greater  accuracy  than  has  been  hitherto  attained,  the 
chronology  of  Shirley's  plays.  This  chronology  being 
established,  our  endeavor  now  becomes  twofold  :  first, 
to  ascertain  the  character  of  his  dramatic  works,  both 
individually  and  in  their  several  kinds,  realistic  and 
romantic;  and,  second,  to  ascertain  the  direction  of 
his  growth  from  play  to  play,  from  period  to  period. 
With  respect  to  their  character,  we  shall  find  that 
Shirley  was  not  without  interest  in  the  realistic 
comedy  of  manners  and  of  humors;  but  that  he  gave 
himself  even  more  earnestly  to  dramatic  romance,  to 
romantic  comedy,  and  to  romantic  tragedy.  With 
respect  to  the  direction  of  his  growth,  we  shall  find 

C67] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

that  Shirley,  although  originally  a  follower  of  the 
realistic  school,  gradually  shifted  to  the  writing  of 
romantic  plays:  that  the  career  of  James  Shirley, 
dramatist,  is  itself  a  drama,  in  which  the  contending 
forces  are  realism  and  romanticism,  and  in  which 
romanticism  is  ultimately  triumphant. 

Of  the  realistic  plays  of  Shirley,  Hyde  Park,  The 
Ball,  and  The  Gamester  are  typical  examples.  Their 
purpose  was  to  satirize  conditions  and  characters  that 
actually  existed,  and,  to  this  end,  not  only  to  depict 
with  accuracy  the  manners  and  the  men  of  court  and 
town,  but,  on  occasion,  to  magnify  an  actual  charac- 
teristic into  a  humor.  In  their  use  of  humors,  in  their 
realism,  in  their  careful  attention  to  technique,  Shir- 
ley's comedies  of  manners  show  conspicuously  the 
influence  of  the  realistic  comedy  of  his  predecessors 
and  contemporaries— the  influence  of  such  plays  as 
Every  Man  in  His  Humor  and  The  Wild  Goose 
Chase.  The  Jonsonian  influence  Shirley  himself  cor- 
dially and  reverently  admitted  when,  in  the  dedica- 
tion of  The  Grateful  Servant,  he  made  reference  to 
"our  acknowledged  master,  learned  Jonson." 

Of  the  romantic  plays  of  Shirley,  The  Traitor,  The 
Young  Admiral,  and  The  Royal  Master  are  repre- 
sentative. Their  purpose  was  to  present,  on  the  far 
coast  of  some  Bohemia,  intrigues  of  statecraft  or  of 
love  :  scene  after  scene  of  amazement  or  poetic  charm. 

C168] 


THE  PLAYS  OF  SHIRLEY 

Occasionally  one  of  these  romantic  plays  may  intro- 
duce a  character  of  humor,  just  as  a  realistic  play  may 
lay  its  scene  in  Mantua  or  Ferrara.  But,  despite  such 
minor  inconsistencies,  the  type  is  clear:  a  romantic 
type  that  reminds  us  now  of  the  romantic  comedy 
and  the  romantic  tragedy  of  Shakspere,  of  a  Much 
Ado  or  of  a  Romeo  and  Juliet;  now  of  the  dramatic 
romance  of  Fletcher  and  of  Shakspere,  of  a  Philaster 
or  of  a  Cymbeline. 

In  Shirley's  first  dramatic  period— from  the  licens- 
ing of  his  first  play,  Love  Tricks,  February  10, 
1624/5,  to  the  licensing  of  The  Ball,  November  16, 
1632  — realism  is  increasingly  triumphant.  Indeed, 
out  of  the  eleven  surviving  plays  that  belong  surely 
to  this  period,1  only  three—  The  Maid's  Revenge, 
The  Grateful  Servant,  and  The  Traitor— are  defi- 
nitely romantic.  Love  Tricks  is  a  mixture  of  roman- 
ticism and  realism;  and  the  remaining  seven  plays— 
The  Wedding,  The  Witty  Fair  One,  The  Humorous 
Courtier,  Love's  Cruelty,  Changes,  Hyde  Park,  and 
The  Ball—  are  definitely  realistic.  Five  of  these  seven 

1  From  this  estimate,  I  omit  the  play  licensed  as  The  Brothers, 
November  4,  1626.  For  reasons  stated  in  my  second  chapter,  I  am 
convinced  that  it  is  not  the  play  published  as  The  Brothers  in  1652. 
That  The  Brothers  of  1626  may  be  identical  with  Dicke  of  Devonshire 
is  possible,  but  has  not  been  proved.  That  the  play  is  no  longer  extant 
is  quite  as  probable.  As  for  the  play  published  as  The  Brothers  in 
1652,  I  shall  consider  it  in  this  work  as  identical  with  the  play  licensed 
as  The  Politique  Father,  May  26,  1641. 

1:1693 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

realistic  plays,  moreover,  fall  in  the  last  two  years  of 
the  period,  in  swift  succession. 

Realism  and  romanticism,  the  two  forces  that  in 
the  drama  of  Shirley  were  to  struggle  for  the  mastery, 
make  their  appearance  together  in  his  first  dramatic 
work.  Of  the  three  plays  that  form  the  subject  of 
this  chapter,  The  Maid's  Revenge  is  a  romantic  trag- 
edy; The  Wedding  is  a  realistic  comedy  of  manners 
and  of  humors;  and  Love  Tricks,  or  The  School  of 
Complement,  which  chronologically  I  should  have 
mentioned  first,  is  a  glorious  mixture  of  elements  that 
range  from  the  Fletcherian  pastoral  of  the  closing 
scenes  to  the  Jonsonian  humors  of  the  compliment- 
school. 

For  a  career  in  which  so  many  elements  were  suc- 
cessfully to  mingle,  Love  Tricks,  or  The  School  of 
Complement,  licensed  February  10,  1624/5,  affords 
an  introduction  thoroughly  appropriate.  It  well- 
nigh  exemplifies,  indeed,  the  type  of  play  once  men- 
tioned by  Polonius — the  "tragical-comical-historical- 
pastoral.  "  Like  a  modern  musical  comedy,  the  play 
consists  of  a  multitude  of  episodes  emotionally  di- 
verse and  intellectually  incoherent,  strung  on  a  thread 
that  only  by  courtesy  can  be  called  a  plot. 

Such  as  it  is,  the  story  deals  with  the  fortunes  of 
two  families.  The  first  consists  of  an  ancient  gentle- 
man named  Cornd io,  his  son  Antonio,  and  his  daugh- 


THE  WEDDING 

The  Wedding,  acted— if  Fleay  be  right8— on  May 
31,  1626,  is  a  comedy  of  London  life  and  manners. 
Unlike  Love  Tricks,  The  Wedding  is  no  mere  med- 
ley but  a  well-constructed  play.  It  is,  moreover,  a 
play  representative  of  Shirley's  comedies  of  manners 
at  their  best:  a  realistic  picture  not  of  the  coarser 
side  of  London  life  but  of  fashionable  society;  a  pic- 
ture, witty,  "humorous,"  but  not  satiric;  with  a  real- 
ism which,  in  the  scenes  of  deepest  feeling,  the  poet's 
alchemy  well-nigh  transmutes  into  romanticism. 

The  major  plot  is  characterized  by  strong  scenes 
and  striking  situations.  As  the  hero,  Beauford,  is 
on  the  point  of  marrying  Gratiana,  his  cousin  Mar- 
wood  declares  to  him  that  he,  Marwood,  has  sinfully 
enjoyed  the  bride.  In  the  duel  resulting  from  this 
accusation,  Marwood  falls,  but  with  his  dying  breath 
affirms  the  truth  of  his  assertion.  Beauford,  return- 
ing to  the  house  where  all  are  waiting  for  the  cere- 
mony, takes  Gratiana  apart,  repeats  Marwood's  accu- 
sation, and  refuses  to  credit  her  denials.  He  then 
withdraws  to  await  his  own  arrest  for  the  slaying  of 
Marwood.  Gratiana,  meanwhile,  has  found  a  cham- 
pion in  Captain  Landby,  nephew  of  Justice  Landby, 
a  figure  in  the  minor  plot.  Captain  Landby  conceals 
Gratiana  in  his  uncle's  house,  and  then  takes  from  her 
to  Beauford  a  letter  stating  that,  by  the  time  he  re- 

8  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  VIII,  405. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ceives  it,  she  will  be  dead  by  drowning.  The  captain, 
however,  is  not  her  only  supporter.  Millicent,  her 
page,  claims  to  have  knowledge  bearing  on  the  case, 
and  advises  that  Gratiana  examine  Cardona,  her 
waiting-woman.  As  a  result,  Millicent  goes  pres- 
ently to  Beauford's  lodging,  and  places  before  him 
a  great  chest  in  which,  says  Millicent,  is  Marwood's 
body.  As  Marwood's  relative,  the  page  demands 
satisfaction  for  his  death;  but  first  he  insists  that 
Beauford  listen  to  the  evidence  of  Cardona,  whom, 
to  gain  Gratiana,  Marwood  had  corrupted.  This 
evidence  proves  that  Marwood  enjoyed  not  Gratiana 
but  Cardona's  daughter  Lucibel.  Beauford,  now 
conscious  of  his  fatal  error,  opens  the  chest,  finds 
within  it  not  the  dead  Marwood  but  the  living  Gra- 
tiana, and  then,  just  as  all  joy  seems  to  have  returned, 
is  once  more  driven  to  despair:  officers  enter  to  arrest 
him  for  the  murder  of  Marwood.  Brought  before 
Justice  Landby,  Beauford  offers  no  defense.  Gra- 
tiana pleads  for  him  without  avail.  When  all  hope 
seems  vanished,  the  justice  asks  the  whereabouts  of 
Marwood's  body,  and,  at  that,  Marwood  himself 
steps  forward  living.  They  then  demand  that  he 
admit  his  error  and  Gratiana's  innocence.  When  he 
refuses,  they  summon  in  Cardona.  She,  repeating 
her  testimony,  adds  the  circumstance  that,  since  that 
night,  her  daughter  Lucibel  has  not  been  seen.     At 

['783 


THE  WEDDING 

that,  Millicent  the  page  steps  forward  and  reveals 
himself  as  Lucibel  disguised.  Marwood— a  libertine 
reformed— declares  that  he  will  begin  his  recompense 
by  marrying  Lucibel. 

The  subplot  of  The  Wedding  concerns  the  rivalry 
of  three  suitors  for  the  hand  of  Jane,  daughter  of 
Justice  Landby.  Two  of  these  suitors  are  characters 
of  humor:  Lodam,  fat  and  ever  eating;  Rawbone,  a 
usurer,  thin  as  a  result  of  his  penurious  abstinence. 
The  third  is  Haver,  a  young  gentleman  of  good  birth 
and  character  but  restricted  means,  who,  disguised 
under  the  name  of  Jasper,  has  become  servant  to 
Rawbone  that  he  may  be  employed  as  a  messenger  to 
Mistress  Jane.  In  the  minds  of  Jane  and  of  her  fa- 
ther, Haver  is  the  favored  suitor;  but  the  justice, 
desiring  to  test  his  daughter,  pretends  to  favor  Raw- 
bone. Haver,  knowing  both  his  rivals  to  be  cowards, 
inspires  Rawbone  to  challenge  Lodam  to  a  duel, 
promising  to  fight  disguised  in  Rawbone's  place. 
Lodam,  knowing  Rawbone  to  be  as  much  of  a  coward 
as  he  is  himself,  makes  great  boasts,  but  yields  at 
Haver's  first  attack.  Captain  Landby,  who  has 
watched  the  duel  for  his  uncle,  then  brings  all  the 
participants  before  the  justice.  Before  Rawbone 
can  make  Haver  reexchange  clothes,  Justice  Landby 
commands  Jane  instantly  to  marry  the  supposed 
Rawbone.     The  protests  of  the  real  Rawbone  are 

CI79] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

fruitless;  and  the  lovers,  never  suspecting  that  Jane's 
father  knows  the  identity  of  the  victorious  duelist, 
hasten  to  be  married  before  he  shall  discover  his  mis- 
take. 

To  the  critic  in  pursuit  of  echoes,  The  Wedding 
has  more  than  one  Shaksperian  detail.  Just  as  Selina 
in  Love  Tricks  suggested,  in  her  shepherd  weeds,  the 
figure  of  Rosalind  in  As  You  Like  It,  so  Millicent- 
Lucibel,  the  page,  recalls  Julia  of  Two  Gentlemen 
of  Verona  and  Viola  of  Twelfth  Night.  Yet  she 
might  with  equal  propriety  recall  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher's  Euphrasia-Bellario  of  Philaster  or  Shir- 
ley's own  Castabella  of  The  Maid's  Revenge.  But  for 
chronology,  Massinger's  Maria-Ascanio  of  The 
Bashful  Lover  (licensed  1635)  might  have  been 
added  to  the  list.  The  complaints  of  Camelion,  Raw- 
bone's  starving  servant,  suggest  remotely  the  similar 
complaints  of  Launcelot  Gobbo,  famished  in  the 
house  of  Shylock.  Beauford's  accusation  against  his 
bride  Gratiana  and  his  subsequent  belief  that  she  is 
dead  may  be  compared  with  Claudio's  accusation  in 
Much  Ado  About  Nothing  and  Hero's  period  of 
concealment;  but  in  Shirley's  play,  the  bridegroom  is 
less  of  a  blackguard,  and  the  denouement  a  bit  more 
plausible.  Most  nearly  Shaksperian  are  the  duel  be- 
tween Lodam  and  the  supposed  Rawbone,  and  the 
challenge  that  precedes  it— both  scenes  strongly  remi- 
niscent of  Twelfth  Night.    The  real  atmosphere  of 


THE  WEDDING 

the  play,  however,  is  not  that  of  Shakspere  but  that 
of  Jonson  or  that  of  Fletcher— in  his  realistic  work. 
Most  evident  in  the  humors  of  Lodam  and  of  Raw- 
bone,  this  realistic  atmosphere  permeates  the  entire 
play  and  is  especially  perceptible  in  the  Landby 
household :  above  all  else,  The  Wedding  is  a  comedy 
of  London  life  and  manners. 

Our  outline  of  The  Wedding  has  made  evident,  I 
hope,  the  strength  of  the  play  with  respect  to  dra- 
matic struggle  and  surprise.  In  another  respect, 
however,  it  is  less  successful :  although  each  of  its 
plots  taken  by  itself  is  well  constructed,  the  play  as 
a  whole  lacks  unity  in  the  highest  sense.  Between  the 
two  plots  there  is  no  inevitable  relation:  Justice 
Landby  and  his  nephew  are  the  only  characters  that 
appear  in  both,  and  they  are  vital  to  neither.  In 
short,  the  play  is  merely  salt  and  sugar  in  the  same 
receptacle;  a  physical  mixture,  not  a  chemical  com- 
pound; two  plays,  not  one.  This  fault  is  frequent  in 
non-Shaksperian  comedy;  but  we  must  remember  its 
existence  when  we  read  the  otherwise  acceptable  criti- 
cism of  Dyce:  "This  comedy  is  one  of  Shirley's  most 
perfect  productions,  equally  admirable  in  its  serious 
and  in  its  broadly  humorous  scenes;  its  plot  is  con- 
ducted with  infinite  art,  and  its  characters  are 
strongly  drawn  and  happily  contrasted.' 

9  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  xiii. 


11  9 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Slight  as  are  the  three  plays  considered  in  this 
chapter,  they  indicate  something  of  the  scope,  if  not 
of  the  strength,  of  Shirley's  subsequent  work.  In  the 
more  serious  portions  of  The  Wedding,  we  note  a 
faint  influence  of  Shaksperian  romantic  comedy:  an 
echo,  perhaps,  from  Much  Ado.  In  the  masque  and 
pastoral  of  Love  Tricks,  in  the  girl  page  of  The 
Wedding  and  The  Maid's  Revenge,  and  in  the  love, 
the  hate,  the  duel,  the  poisoning,  the  stabbing,  and 
the  suicide  of  the  latter  play,  we  note  the  influence 
of  Fletcherian  pastoral,  and  dramatic  romance,  and 
romantic  tragedy.  And,  most  conspicuous  of  all,  in 
the  witty  servant  and  the  country  gull  of  Love  Tricks, 
in  the  usurer  of  The  Wedding,  in  the  school  of  com- 
plement in  the  former  play,  and  in  the  low-comedy 
scenes  in  the  latter,  we  note  the  influence  of  Jonsonian, 
of  Fletcherian— and  possibly  Middletonian— comedy 
of  manners  and  of  humors.  Shirley,  unquestionably, 
is  a  student  of  his  predecessors.  Unquestionably,  also, 
he  is  as  yet  divided  in  his  allegiance  between  realism 
and  romanticism.  How  far  he  is  to  profit  by  his 
study,  and  with  which  school  he  is  ultimately  to  cast 
his  lot,  shall  be  considered  in  the  chapters  following. 


C'**D 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONTINUED 

THE  WITTY  FAIR  ONE  AND 
THE  GRATEFUL  SERVANT 

FROM  February  10,  1624/5,  to  November  4, 
1626,  Shirley,  as  we  have  noted,  had  pro- 
duced three  tolerably  successful  plays— 
Love  Tricks,  The  Maid's  Revenge,  and  The  Wed- 
ding,—together  with  a  fourth  play,  The  Brothers  of 
1626,  the  identity  of  which  is  now  uncertain.  Four 
plays,  however,  within  so  brief  a  time,  meant  hasty 
work.  We  are  glad  to  note,  therefore,  that,  in  the 
years  immediately  following,  our  dramatist  allowed 
himself  to  write  more  leisurely.  In  the  four  years 
and  a  half  from  November  4,  1626,  to  May  4,  1631, 
Shirley  contented  himself  with  the  production  of 
three  plays:  The  Witty  Fair  One,  The  Faithful  Ser- 
vant (published  as  The  Grateful  Servant) ,  and  The 
Traitor.  These  three,  unlike  the  plays  before  con- 
sidered, show  careful  workmanship.  Like  them, 
however,  they  represent  continued  experiment  in  sev- 
eral types  of  drama:  The  Witty  Fair  One  is  a  realistic 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

comedy  of  manners  and  of  humors;  The  Grateful 
Servant  is  romantic  comedy  with  a  realistic  under- 
plot; and  The  Traitor  is  romantic  tragedy.  Of  these 
three  plays,  The  Traitor,  because  of  its  importance, 
I  reserve  for  Chapter  VIII ;  The  Witty  Fair  One  and 
The  Grateful  Servant  are  the  subject  of  the  present 
chapter. 

The  Witty  Fair  One,  licensed  October  3,  1628,  is  a 
comedy  of  London  life  and  manners.  Its  major  plot 
presents  the  stratagems  of  the  rich  and  witty  Violetta 
to  avoid  marriage  with  the  rich  and  witless  Sir  Nich- 
olas Treedle— her  father's  choice— and  to  bestow 
her  hand  upon  her  poor  but  adoring  lover  Aimwell. 
Against  her  purpose,  the  principal  obstacle  is  the 
watchfulness  of  Brains,  her  father's  servant.  Through 
a  friend,  she  sends  to  Aimwell  an  oral  message  which 
seems  to  say  to  him  his  love  is  hopeless.  He,  how- 
ever, finds  in  her  purposed  ambiguities  a  favorable 
interpretation,  and  succeeds  in  sending  her  a  letter. 
Brains  hears  her  read  it,  and  presently  detects  her 
maid  delivering  to  Aimwell  a  reply.  That  night, 
Brains  steals  from  Violetta's  chamber  what  he  sup- 
poses to  be  Aimwell's  letter.  When  Aimwell  boasts 
to  a  friend  his  note  from  Violetta,  he  opens  it  to  find 
that  it  is  the  note  he  sent  to  her,  seemingly  returned 
in  scorn.  He  resolves  to  love  no  more.  Brains,  on 
the  other  hand,  discovers  that  the  letter  he  has  stolen 


THE  WITTY   FAIR  ONE 

is  not  Aimwell's  note  to  Violetta  but  her  intended 
answer— the  best  evidence  that  Brains  could  wish. 
He  addresses  it  to  her  father,  and  sends  it  to  him  by 
Sensible,  Violetta's  maid.  Violetta,  worried  at  the 
loss  of  her  letter— the  note  from  Aimwell,  as  she 
thinks, — offers  to  deliver  the  missive  that  the  maid  is 
taking  to  her  father,  so  that  the  maid  may  search  for 
the  missing  note.  As  a  result,  Violetta  hands  her  fa- 
ther the  note  that  she  has  written  to  Aimwell :  an 
acceptance  of  Aimwell's  love  and  an  exhortation  to 
prevent  her  marriage  to  Sir  Nicholas.  Her  father 
reads  it,  rages,  discharges  Sensible,  summons  Brains 
to  stand  guard  over  Violetta,  and  orders  that  the  mar- 
riage to  Sir  Nicholas  take  place  next  morning.  Vio- 
letta, however,  sends  to  Aimwell  by  Sensible  a  fur- 
ther message;  and  he  prepares  accordingly.  She, 
meanwhile,  pretends  to  be  reconciled  to  the  mar- 
riage; obtains,  through  Sir  Nicholas,  permission  to 
go  shopping— with  Brains  as  escort;  and  stirs  up  the 
vain  tutor  of  the  foolish  knight  to  waylay  Brains  and 
bear  her  off.  When  the  tutor  attacks,  he  receives  a 
beating  from  the  efficient  Brains;  but  during  the 
scuffle,  Sensible,  masked  and  dressed  like  her  mis- 
tress, takes  Violetta's  place.  Presently,  accompanied 
by  officers,  the  tutor  pursues  Brains,  causes  his  arrest, 
and— as  he  thinks — valiantly  bears  off  his  lady-love. 
He,  however,  is  waylaid  in  turn  by  Sir  Nicholas  and 

1:185] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

his  servants;  and  the  knight,  likewise  supposing  that 
Sensible  is  Violetta,  carries  her  off  to  the  parson  who 
shall  "divide"  them  into  man  and  wife.  Violetta, 
meanwhile,  has  been  duly  married  to  the  waiting 
Aimwell.  Such  is  the  major  plot;  and  of  it,  well  may 
Schelling  say:  "Seldom  in  the  old  drama  has  the 
principle  of  climax  and  surprise  been  so  cleverly  em- 
ployed." ' 

I  wonder,  however,  whether  Schelling  has  as- 
sumed correctly  that  Violetta  is  "the  witty  fair  one." 
Shirley's  own  auditors,  it  seems  to  me,  would  have 
applied  that  title  rather  to  Penelope,  Violetta's 
cousin.  This  ingenious  maiden,  who  makes  the  minor 
plot  revolve  about  her,  is  in  love  with  Fowler,  a  well- 
born libertine.  She  realizes  fully  that  Fowler — like 
many  another  hero  of  the  comedy  of  manners— in- 
tends only  to  betray  her;  but  she  resolves  to  outwit 
him,  and  to  lead  him  to  the  altar.  His  pretext— that 
of  Volpone  in  his  pursuit  of  Celia,  Corvino's  wife2 — 
she  seemingly  accepts.  She  consents  to  a  meeting  in 
her  chamber,  admits  him,  puts  him  to  shame;  and 
then  pretends  that  he  is  dying  in  her  presence.  Her 
friends  assist  her  in  the  jest.  Fowler  hears  that  he  is 
dead  ;  that  his  funeral  is  about  to  be  solemnized.  He 
attends  it,  hears  his  evil  life  discussed,  and  for  a  time 

1  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  II,  289. 
'-'  Jonson,  Volpone,  n,  iii;  in,  vi. 


THE  WITTY   FAIR  ONE 

he  imagines  that  he  is  really  dead.  He  reads  the 
elegies  and  epitaphs  prepared  for  his  solace  by  the 
witty  fair  one.    Among  them  are  the  touching  lines: 

How  he  died,  some  do  suppose; 
How  he  lived,  the  parish  knows. 
Whether  he's  gone  to  Heaven  or  hell, 
Ask  me  not;  I  cannot  tell.3 

Presently  he  addresses  Penelope,  and  she  answers 
him.  He  asks  her  whether  she  is  talking  to  a  dead 
man.  She  answers,  Yes,  to  a  man  dead  to  all  noble 
thoughts  and— until  his  reformation  — dead  to  her. 
As  she  is  about  to  vow  utter  renunciation  of  him,  he 
interrupts  her  with  a  promise  to  reform  his  life  and 
an  offer  of  honorable  marriage.  Her  father  approves 
the  match,  and  she  accepts.  If  such  an  elaborate 
pleasantry  be  wit,  Penelope  is  the  witty  fair  one. 

The  plot-structure  of  this  play  is  excellent;  and 
yet,  with  all  its  excellences,  two  faults  appear.  The 
first— a  fault  appearing  in  many  comedies  of  the  day 
—  is  the  same  as  that  which  we  noted  in  The  Wed- 
ding: major  and  minor  plots  exist  each  for  itself.  As 
Sir  Nicholas  would  put  it,  they  have  been  divided 
into  man  and  wife.  Between  the  action  centering 
about  Fowler  and  Penelope  and  that  centering  about 
Brains,  Aimwell,  and  Violetta,  there  is  no  necessary 

3  The  Witty  Fair  One,  v,  iii;  Works,  I,  357. 

C1873 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

connection.  The  second  fault  is  that,  in  order  to  pre- 
serve suspense,  Shirley  violates  all  reasonable  chro- 
nology. In  Act  III,  scene  iii,  he  makes  Aimwell  open 
for  the  first  time  a  letter  that  was  handed  him  at  the 
end  of  Act  II.  Yet,  as  appears  from  Brains's  all-night 
watch  in  Violetta's  chamber  (ill,  i),  and  from  Sir 
Nicholas's  morning  greeting  to  his  tutor  (ill,  ii),  a 
whole  night  has  passed  between  the  time  of  Aimwell's 
receipt  of  the  letter  and  his  opening  it.  Shall  we 
believe  that  a  letter  from  Violetta  meant  no  more  to 
Aimwell?  If  it  were  so,  it  was  a  grievous  fault.  If 
not,  what  think  you  of  the  dramatist? 

In  Shirley's  characters  we  find  less  to  censure. 
Most  interesting  among  them  all,  are  the  witless  Sir 
Nicholas  and  the  omniscient  Brains.  The  former 
first  appears  under  the  ministrations  of  his  tutor.  As 
for  the  divisions  of  the  continent  into  peninsula,  isth- 
mus, and  promontory,  he  remembers  some  such 
things,  but  has  forgotten  them.  As  for  his  globe,  he 
will  have  it  stand  in  his  hall,  for  his  tenants  to  wonder 
at,  instead  of  the  Book  of  Martyrs.  As  for  studying 
England,  he  is  resolved  to  be  ignorant  of  his  own 
country;  say  no  more  on  it.4  After  this  we  are  pre- 
pared to  accept  Aimwell's  "character"  of  the  knight: 
.  .  .  His  inward  senses  are  sound,  for  none  comes 

/  '■<  Witty  Fair  One,  n,  i;  Works,  i,  293-294. 

[188] 


THE  WITTY   FAIR  ONE 

from  him;  he  speaks  words,  but  no  matter.  .  .  ."5 
From  such  a  character  flow  errors  innumerable.  He 
begins  by  saluting  not  his  betrothed  but  her  cousin : 

Sir  Nicholas  [to  Penelope~\.    Lady,  and  mistress  of 
my  heart,  which  hath  long  melted  for  you, — 
Richley.    This  is  my  daughter. 
Sir  Nicholas.    Then  it  melted  for  you,  lady.6 

His  tutor  has  supplied  him  with  verses  for  his  lady- 
love; but  Sir  Nicholas  presently  admits  they  are  not 
his,  and  offers  in  comparison  some  absurd  lines  that 
he  has  made  himself: 

Her  foot  is  feat  with  diamond  toes, 
But  she  with  legs  of  ruby  goes. 

•  •••■•• 

Her  head  is  opal,  neck  of  sapphire, 
Breast  carbuncles,  shine  like  a  fire; 
And,  the  naked  truth  to  tell  ye, 
The  very  mother  of  pearl  her  belly. 
How  can  she  choose  but  hear  my  groans, 
That  is  composed  of  precious  stones?7 

After  much  display  of  wit  and  valor,  which  makes 
one  think  that  perhaps  Sir  Nicholas  is  himself  the 
witty  fair  one,  he  ends,  as  we  have  noted,  by  marrying 

5  The  Witty  Fair  One,  II,  ii ;  Works,  I,  306. 

6  Ibid.,  p.  307. 

7  Ibid.,  ill,  ii;  Works,  I,  312-313. 

[189: 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Violetta's  maid— poor  thing!— and,  fearing  to  be 
jeered  for  his  mistake,  he  maintains  that  he  has  not 
been  cheated  and  that  Sensible  shall  be  his  own  lady- 
bird ;  for  ua  lady  is  a  lady,  a  bargain  is  a  bargain,  and 
a  knight  is  no  gentleman." s 

As  for  Brains  the  watch-dog,  Brains  the  om- 
niscient, Brains  the  argus-eyed,  I  cannot  better  ex- 
press his  character  and,  at  the  same  time,  his  humor 
and  its  cure,  than  by  quoting  one  of  his  later  speeches : 

It  was  my  boast  that  I  was  never  cozened  in  my  life. 
Have  I  betrayed  so  many  plots,  discovered  letters,  de- 
ciphered characters,  stript  knavery  to  the  skin,  and  laid 
open  the  very  soul  of  conspiracy,  deserved  for  my  cunning 
to  be  called  Brains  both  town  and  country  over,  and  now 
to  forfeit  them,  to  see  them  drenched  in  a  muddy  strata- 
gem, cheated  by  a  woman,  and  a  pedantical  lousy  word- 
monger!  It  is  abominable;  patience,  I  abhor  thee.  I 
desire  him  that  bids  me  go  hang  myself,  which  is  the  way 
to  Surgeon's  Hall?  I  will  beg  to  have  my  skull  cut.  I 
have  a  suspicion  my  brains  are  filched,  and  my  head  has 
been  late  stuffed  with  woodcocks'  feathers.9 

Such  is  The  Witty  Fair  One.    Like  The  Wedding 

-even  more  than  The  Wedding— it  is  a  comedy  of 

London  life  and  manners:  a  play  in  the  style  of  Jon- 

son,  with  Jonson's  careful  structure,  Jonson's  truth 

The  Witty  Fair  One.  v,  iii;  {forks,  I,  361. 
Ibid.,  p.  359. 


THE  GRATEFUL  SERVANT 

to  life,  Jonson's  comic  characters  of  humor;  yes,  and 
the  repulsive  intrigue  of  Jonson's  Volpone.  From  a 
dramatic  point  of  view,  the  play  is  excellent.  Mor- 
ally, however,  the  underplot  is  a  body  of  material 
that  not  all  the  wit  of  Penelope  can  fumigate,  and 
that  could  be  expurgated  only  by  annihilation.  That 
the  editor  of  the  Mermaid  Shirley  should  include 
The  Witty  Fair  One  among  his  five  "Best  Plays,"  is 
a  matter  for  regret.  With  all  the  wealth  of  Shirley's 
romantic  plays  from  which  to  choose,  why  should 
Gosse  select  but  comedies  of  manners — and  of  man- 
ners so  abhorrent? 

Unlike  The  Witty  Fair  One,  The  Grateful  Ser- 
vant, licensed  as  The  Faithful  Servant  November  3, 
1629,  is  in  its  main  plot  a  pure  romantic  comedy, 
comparable  in  subject-matter  and  in  poetic  charm 
with  the  story  of  Shakspere's  Viola.  In  its  underplot, 
however,  it  is  a  realistic  picture  of  a  cynical  libertine 
and  of  his  reformation  by  means  of  an  elaborate  jest 
—  a  picture  in  which  the  repulsiveness  of  the  theme  is 
all  but  forgotten  amid  the  grimness  of  the  humor. 

The  Duke  of  Savoy,  indignant  that  Milan  has  de- 
nied him  the  once-promised  hand  of  Princess  Leo- 
nora, announces  that  he  will  woo  to  be  his  wife  a 
beautiful  gentlewoman  of  Savoy,  Cleona.  At  the 
duke's  capital  have  just  arrived  Foscari,  a  nobleman 
formerly  betrothed  to  this  Cleona  but  by  her  believed 

r*9i] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

to  have  died  in  foreign  travel,  and  Dulcino,  a  beau- 
tiful youth  whom  Foscari  has  rescued  from  a  band  of 
outlaws  and  who,  in  gratitude,  has  become  Foscari's 
page.  Foscari,  ignorant  of  the  duke's  addresses,  sends 
Dulcino  to  Cleona  to  announce  his  own  arrival.  At 
Cleona's,  Dulcino  meets  the  duke;  and  the  latter  is 
so  strongly  reminded  of  his  lost  Leonora  that,  for  the 
moment,  he  breaks  off  his  wooing.  Cleona,  although 
flattered  by  the  duke's  addresses,  is  true  to  Foscari 
and  is  rejoiced  to  find  him  living.  Foscari,  however, 
in  exaggerated  devotion,  resolves  to  show  his  love  to 
her  by  withdrawing  his  claim  in  favor  of  the  duke. 
To  this  end,  he  arranges  himself  to  enter  a  Benedic- 
tine monastery,  informs  the  astonished  duke  of  his 
resolution  and  its  motive,  and  orders  Dulcino  to  tell 
Cleona  that  the  news  that  Foscari  was  alive  is  false— 
a  tale  intended  only  to  gain  her  momentary  favor— 
and  that  Dulcino  now  reveals  the  deception  lest  it 
prevent  her  marriage  to  the  duke.  This  message  Dul- 
cino presently  delivers,  and  then,  urged  by  Foscari, 
consents  to  become  with  him  a  Benedictine,  and  fear- 
fully awaits  the  arrival  of  the  holy  father  who  is  to 
arrange  for  their  admission.  The  holy  father  proves 
to  be  Valentio,  with  whom  Dulcino  had  been  travel- 
ing when  the  outlaws  set  upon  them;  and  he  immedi- 
ately greets  Dulcino  as  "dear  Leonora."  When  the 
duke,  Cleona,  and  all  the  lords  and  ladies  of  the 


THE  GRATEFUL  SERVANT 

court,  have  assembled  by  invitation  of  the  abbot  to 
witness  the  admission  of  Foscari  and  Dulcino  to  the 
Benedictine  order,  Father  Valentio  reveals  the  iden- 
tity of  the  latter  to  the  duke : 

Leonora,  daughter  to  the  late  Gonzaga,  Duke  of  Mi- 
lan, fearing  she  should  be  compell'd  to  marry  her  uncle, 
in  the  habit  of  a  page  and  the  conduct  of  Father  Valentio, 
came  to  Savoy  to  try  the  love  and  honour  of  his  excellence, 
who  once  solicited  by  his  ambassador — ] 


10 


The  joyous  duke  reveals  the  whole  situation  to  Cle- 
ona;  and  the  play  ends  with  the  union  of  the  dis- 
guised princess  to  the  duke  and  of  Cleona  to  Foscari. 
Side  by  side  with  this  romantic  plot  is  set  the  realis- 
tic picture  of  the  duke's  brother,  Lodwick  the  liber- 
tine, his  depravity  and  its  reformation.  At  the  open- 
ing of  the  play  we  find  him  refusing  to  accompany 
the  duke  a-wooing,  because  his  wronged  wife  Astella 
is  living  with  Cleona;  and  presently  we  find  him 
commanding  his  follower  Piero  to  commit  adultery 
with  his  wife  so  that  he  may  have  adequate  grounds 
for  a  divorce.  His  former  guardian,  the  aged  lord 
Grimundo,  undertakes  his  reformation.  Grimundo, 
after  fruitless  exhortation,  pretends  that  he  has  all  this 
time  but  played  the  hypocrite,  and  offers  to  take  the 
libertine  to  a  mistress  more  glorious  than  any  he  has 

10  The  Grateful  Servant,  v,  ii;  Works,  II,  90. 

CI93  3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

yet  enjoyed.  In  fulfilment,  Grimundo  brings  him  to 
a  wondrous  garden.  A  masque  of  nymphs  and  satyrs 
welcomes  them.  Strange  music  sounds.  The  lady  of 
the  garden  fascinates  him  with  her  beauty.  But  Lod- 
wick  is  conscious  rather  of  the  uncanny  horror  of  the 
place  and  of  its  mistress:  she  hints  at  strange  powers, 
promises  him  unlimited  dominion,  and  finally  admits 
she  is  a  devil.  Shuddering,  he  begs  permission  to 
depart.  He  hurries  home,  only  to  find  that  Piero  is 
with  Astella.  Piero  insists  that  he  has  fulfilled  his 
master's  orders,  and  looks  for  his  reward.  Lodwick 
responds  by  an  attempt  to  slay  him.  This  brings 
Piero  to  the  truth:  Astella's  virtue  has  resisted  all  en- 
treaty. Taking  his  wife,  Lodwick  hastens  to  the  duke 
his  brother.  They  arrive  close  upon  the  discovery 
that  the  Benedictine  candidates  are  Foscari  and  the 
princess.  Before  the  abbot,  duke,  and  court,  Lod- 
wick declares  that  he  "new  marries"  Astella,  and  de- 
mands justice  against  Lord  Grimundo.  At  that  in- 
stant, to  his  horror,  there  enters  the  lady  of  the 
garden,  the  she-devil.  Lodwick  redoubles  his  vows 
of  reformation.  The  she-devil  throws  back  her  veil 
and  reveals  herself  as  Grimundo's  wife  Belinda. 

In  both  its  minor  and  its  major  plot,  this  play  is 
capitally  conceived  and  executed.  That  the  two  plots 
have  no  inevitable  relation,  we  may  admit;  but  the 
skill  with  which  they  have  been  interwoven  is  like- 

CI94] 


THE  GRATEFUL  SERVANT 

wise  evident.  In  neither  plot  is  there  a  moment's 
dullness.  This  interest  results  in  part  from  the  clever 
and  effective  dialogue;  but  it  results  even  more  from 
the  striking  nature  of  the  situations.  Scene  after 
scene,  the  interest  never  wanes.  The  opening  tilt  be- 
tween Lodwick  and  the  duke,  Grimundo's  warning 
to  Foscari,  Cleona's  welcome  to  Dulcino's  message, 
the  courtship  of  the  duke  and  his  departure,  Foscari's 
resolution,  Dulcino's  second  message  and  Cleona's 
grief,  Grimundo's  manceuvers  against  the  libertine, 
Lodwick's  instigation  of  Piero,  Foscari's  visit  to  the 
duke,  his  avowal  of  his  renunciation,  and  the  duke's 
acceptance  of  the  sacrifice,  Father  Valentio's  recogni- 
tion of  the  princess,  Lodwick's  adventures  with  the 
supposed  succuba,  Piero's  attempted  adultery  with 
Astella  and  his  subsequent  meeting  with  her  husband, 
and,  finally,  the  grand  assembly  at  the  abbey  with  its 
threefold  revelation— each  scene  holds  reader  or 
auditor  intent,  a  dramaturgic  triumph. 

In  characterization,  as  in  scene-conception,  The 
Grateful  Servant  marks  a  forward  step  in  Shirley's 
dramaturgy.  In  The  Witty  Fair  One,  Shirley  was 
content  to  prepare  for  the  entrance  of  Sir  Nicholas 
by  means  of  a  lengthy  "character"  in  the  mouth  of 
Aimwell.  In  The  Grateful  Servant,  he  relies  rather 
upon  innumerable  minor  touches — the  chance  re- 
marks and  action  of  all  the  persons  of  the  play  and 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

especially  of  the  one  to  be  described.  He  makes  his 
readers  or  auditors  suppose  that  they  are  becoming 
acquainted  with  the  people  of  the  play  precisely  as 
they  would  become  acquainted  with  people  in  real 
life.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  make  Soranzo  remark, 
when  Lodwick  has  scarcely  spoken  once,  "Still  the 
same  wild  prince.  There  needs  no  character  where 
he  is,  to  express  him."11  Of  the  as  yet  unmentioned 
persons  in  this  play,  Jacomo  is  the  one  most  entertain- 
ing. He  is  Cleona's  steward,  foolish  and  ambitious. 
He  argues:  "If  his  grace  come  hither  a  suitor  to  my 
lady,  as  we  have  some  cause  to  suspect,  and  after 
marry  her,  I  may  be  a  great  man,  and  ride  upon  a 
reverend  mule  by  patent.  There  is  no  end  of  my  pre- 
ferment. .  .  .  Methinks  I  talk  like  a  peremptory 
statesman  already;  I  shall  quickly  learn  to  forget  my- 
self when  I  am  great  in  office;  I  will  oppress  the 
subject,  flatter  the  prince,  take  bribes  on  both  sides, 
do  right  to  neither,  serve  heaven  so  far  as  my  profit 
will  give  me  leave,  and  tremble  only  at  the  sum- 
mons of  a  parliament."12  So  he  domineers  over  the 
household,  and  over  Foscari's  messenger,  the  prin- 
cess; smiles  or  frowns  according  to  the  direction  of 
the  wind  of  favor;  puts  himself  in  the  way  to  meet 
the  duke,   and   so  has   an  opportunity  to  show  his 

11  '/'/;,•  Grateful  Servant,  i,  i;  Works,  n,  8. 

12  Ibid.,  II,  i;  Works,  II,  24-25. 

[196] 


THE  GRATEFUL  SERVANT 

statesmanship:  "With  your  gracious  pardon,  if  I 
were  worthy  to  be  one  of  your  counsellors—"  "What 
then?"  "I  would  advise  you,  as  others  do,  to  take 
your  own  course.  Your  grace  knows  best  what  is  to 
be  done."  13 

If  we  compare  The  Witty  Fair  One  and  The 
Grateful  Servant  with  the  three  plays  previously  dis- 
cussed, we  feel  that  Shirley  is  growing  in  his  stage- 
craft and  in  his  grasp  of  human  life.  In  respect  to 
unity  of  plot,  he  shows,  to  be  sure,  no  consistency  of 
standard:  even  after  his  tolerable  attainment  in  The 
Maid's  Revenge,  he  is  content  in  general  to  follow 
the  more  loosely  constructed  models  of  his  day.  In 
respect,  however,  to  effectiveness  of  scene,  and  in  re- 
spect to  comic  characterization,  Shirley  is  already 
achieving  considerable  success.  Brains  and  Sir  Nich- 
olas in  The  Witty  Fair  One,  and  Jacomo,  the  Mal- 
volio  of  The  Grateful  Servant,  are  memorable,  if  not 
wholly  original,  creations.  Each  play  contains  much 
that  is  repulsive;  but,  besides  this,  each  contains  much 
genuine  and  wholesome  fun;  and  The  Grateful  Ser- 
vant, in  its  romantic  parts,  manifests  a  delicacy  of 
sentiment  that  we  shall  learn  later  to  recognize  as 
typical  of  Shirley. 

13  The  Grateful  Servant,  III,  ii ;  Works,  II,  50. 


U911 


CHAPTER  VIII 
THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONTINUED 

THE  TRAITOR 

U^NLIKE  its  two  immediate  predecessors, 
The  Witty  Fair  One  and  The  Grateful 
Servant,  Shirley's  The  Traitor,  licensed 
May  4,  163 1,  is  a  romantic  tragedy. 

In  the  interrelating  of  the  several  actions  and  in  the 
high  effectiveness  of  individual  scenes,  this  play  is 
conspicuously  well  constructed.  Its  central  figure  is 
Lorenzo— known  to  history  as  Lorenzino  de'  Medici 
—  kinsman  and  favorite  of  Alexander,  Duke  of  Flor- 
ence. Lorenzo  desires  to  become  duke;  and,  to  this 
end,  besides  creating  a  faction  in  the  city,  he  begins 
two  intrigues.  One  is  to  weaken  his  chief  rival, 
Cosmo,  by  preventing  his  marriage  to  the  wealthy 
Oriana;  the  other  is  to  destroy  the  duke  by  involving 
him  in  deadly  feud  with  a  fiery  noble  named  Sciarrha. 

Up  to  the  middle  of  the  play,  Lorenzo's  fortunes 
rise  triumphantly.  He  vindicates  himself  from  a 
charge  of  conspiracy  against  the  duke.  He  incites 
the  duke  to  select  as  the  object  of  his  lust  the  beautiful 


THE  TRAITOR 

sister  of  Sciarrha,  Amidea.  He  informs  Sciarrha  of 
the  duke's  resolve  and  of  the  duke's  command  that 
Sciarrha  be  his  pander,  and  plots  with  Sciarrha  for 
vengeance  on  the  duke.  When  Sciarrha  tells  his  sis- 
ter that  he  must  kill  the  duke,  she  begs  him  rather 
to  admit  their  sovereign  to  her  chamber  and  leave  the 
rest  to  her.  Sciarrha  consents,  but  hides  behind  the 
hangings.  When  the  duke,  deaf  to  her  entreaties, 
attempts  to  force  her  to  his  will,  Amidea  draws  a 
poniard,  wounds  her  own  arm,  and  declares  that  she 
will  slay  herself  rather  than  be  ravished.  The  duke 
interposes,  turns  penitent,  and  begs  forgiveness.  With 
that,  Sciarrha  comes  forth,  confesses  his  plot  to  slay 
the  duke,  and,  to  convince  him,  hides  him  behind  the 
arras  that  he  may  overhear  a  conference  with  Lo- 
renzo. The  latter,  however,  is  suspicious.  When 
Sciarrha  says  that  he  has  killed  the  duke,  Lorenzo 
feigns  utter  ignorance  and  detestation  of  the  deed, 
and  starts  to  give  the  alarm.  Sciarrha  draws  his 
sword  upon  Lorenzo;  but  the  duke  breaks  forth  and 
interposes,  declares  that  they  have  misunderstood 
each  other,  and  commands  that  they  be  friends.  Thus 
is  the  first  attempt  of  Lorenzo  overthrown ;  but  as  yet 
he  is  himself  secure. 

Meanwhile,  however,  Lorenzo's  second  intrigue 
has  made  successful  progress.  Cosmo,  on  a  pretense 
of  friendship  to  Pisano,  but  chiefly  influenced  by  his 

CI99] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

terror  of  Lorenzo,  has  yielded  Oriana  to  Pisano;  and 
Pisano,  without  the  knowledge  of  Sciarrha,  has 
broken  his  own  engagement  with  Amidea,  and  has 
gained  the  consent  of  Oriana's  mother  to  his  new  be- 
trothal. When  Sciarrha  seeks  vengeance  on  Lorenzo, 
the  latter  first  places  Sciarrha  at  the  mercy  of  his 
swordsmen,  then  frees  him  with  well-feigned  gener- 
osity, and  finally  convinces  him  that  the  reformation 
of  the  duke  should  make  them  both  again  his  loyal 
subjects.  Then  it  is  that  Lorenzo  ( and  Shirley) ,  with 
consummate  skill,  brings  his  second  intrigue  to  bear 
upon  his  first.  He  permits  Sciarrha  to  discover  Pi- 
sano's  breach  of  faith  to  Amidea,  stirs  him  to  ven- 
geance on  Pisano,  persuades  the  duke  that  he  shall 
yet  enjoy  Amidea,  follows  Sciarrha  as  the  latter  stabs 
Pisano  on  his  marriage  morn,  arrests  him,  promises 
a  pardon  on  condition  that  he  yield  Amidea  to  the 
duke,  threatens  that,  unless  he  yield,  his  sister  shall  be 
ravished,  gains  his  pretended  consent,  and  so  leaves 
him  maddening  for  a  second  murder.  Lorenzo,  seem- 
ingly, may  yet  be  duke. 

Sciarrha  tells  Amidea  that  he  must  yield  her  to  the 
duke  or  slay  her.  To  save  her  brother  from  the  latter 
crime,  she  pretends  that  she  will  suffer  the  duke  to 
have  his  will.  Sciarrha  stabs  her.  Dying,  she  ex- 
plains that  she  did  but  seem  consenting,  to  gain  time; 
and  to  her  younger  brother  she  declares— like  Desde- 

[200] 


THE  TRAITOR 

mona— that  her  injury  is  self-inflicted.  Intending 
vengeance  on  the  duke,  Sciarrha  causes  her  body  to 
be  placed  upon  a  bed  in  the  room  where  the  duke 
expects  to  meet  her.  The  duke  enters,  is  left  alone, 
approaches,  kisses  the  corpse,  discovers  she  is  dead. 
As  he  cries  out,  Lorenzo  and  a  confederate  enter.  "My 
Amidea's  dead!"  exclaims  the  duke.  "I  prithee  kill 
me!"  They  both  attack  him.  As  he  falls,  Sciarrha 
enters.  Lorenzo  tries  to  place  on  him  the  crime. 
They  fight.    Sciarrha  kills  Lorenzo — and  then  dies. 

Even  so  brief  a  summary  as  this,  makes  evident  the 
skill  of  our  dramatist  in  plot-construction.  As  to  the 
interweaving  of  actions,  The  Traitor,  in  a  modest 
way,  suggests  even  that  masterpiece,  Othello.  It 
needs  but  this  comparison,  however,  to  show  the  real 
point  of  difference  between  the  greater  and  the  lesser 
dramatist.  The  struggle  in  Othello  is  not  primarily 
that  between  Iago  and  the  Moor,  but  rather  that  be- 
tween Othello's  jealousy  and  his  love;  and  this  strug- 
gle, the  struggle  that  makes  the  play  a  tragedy,  is 
not  external  but  internal.  This  concentration  of  the 
contending  forces  within  a  single  soul  is  what  differ- 
entiates the  plot-structure  of  the  psychological  trag- 
edy of  Shakspere  and  of  Webster  from  that  of  the 
romantic  tragedies  of  minor  Elizabethans.  Of  this 
internal  struggle,  The  Traitor  offers  nothing;  noth- 
ing of  conflicting  motives.    The  contest  is  merely  be- 

[201] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

tween  Lorenzo  on  the  one  hand  and  Sciarrha,  the 
duke,  and  Amidea  on  the  other;  and  in  this  contest, 
each  unwaveringly  performs  his  part  and  takes  the 
consequences:  neither  Sciarrha,  nor  Lorenzo,  nor 
Amidea,  nor  the  pliant  duke,  hesitates  or  regrets. 
For  each,  the  struggle  is  external,  not  within.  This 
qualification  we  must  keep  in  mind  when  we  speak 
of  The  Traitor  as  a  great  tragedy.  As  to  plot-struc- 
ture, Shirley's  conception  has  been  greatly  executed; 
but  his  conception  itself  is  not  the  greatest.  Only  with 
the  admission  that  it  presents  a  struggle  external,  not 
internal,  may  the  plot  of  The  Traitor  be  accounted 
"great." 

What  is  true  of  the  plot,  is  true  also  of  the  charac- 
ters: what  Shirley  attempts  is  not  the  highest;  yet  his 
achievement  is  such  as  to  win  even  Swinburne's  ap- 
probation. Lorenzo,  Sciarrha,  Amidea,  each  is  a 
notable  creation.  Even  the  weakling  duke  is  worth 
our  study. 

In  Lorenzo,  who  plays  the  title  role,  Shirley  has 
created  a  notable  villain:  resourceful,  daring,  plausi- 
ble of  tongue.  Of  his  intrigue  and  its  ambitious  mo- 
tives, Shirley  gives  us  excellent  exposition  even  in  the 
dozen  lines  of  conversation  between  Lorenzo  and  Pe- 
truchio  in  the  opening  scene.  Of  his  resourcefulness 
and  plausibility,  Shirley  presents  a  most  brilliant 
example  in  the  second  scene:  the  scene  in  which  Lo- 

[202] 


THE  TRAITOR 

renzo,  suddenly  accused  of  treason,  overwhelms  his 
accusers  by  successive  instances  of  his  loyalty,  and 
victoriously  leads  away  his  dupe  to  a  night  of  dissi- 
pation. In  the  second  act,  Shirley  again  makes  Lo- 
renzo's skill  of  tongue  victorious:  having  aroused 
Sciarrha's  rage  by  telling  him  of  the  duke's  lust  for 
Amidea,  Lorenzo  aggravates  it  by  telling  Sciarrha 
that  the  duke  wills  that  he,  the  brother,  be  pander; 
turns  it  to  treason  by  admitting  his  own  disloyal  plots ; 
and  fires  it  to  action  by  recalling  to  Sciarrha's  mind 
the  threatened  rape  of  Amidea.  Nor  do  Lorenzo's 
intuition  and  readiness  desert  him  when,  after  the 
duke  and  Amidea  and  Sciarrha  have  made  their 
peace  (Act  III,  scene  iii),  Sciarrha  endeavors  to  trap 
Lorenzo  into  a  confession.  But  perhaps  Shirley's 
characterization  of  Lorenzo  shows  to  best  advantage 
in  the  opening  of  Act  IV,  in  which,  after  the  soliloquy 
admitting  the  failure  of  his  plots,  Lorenzo  seizes 
upon  the  visit  of  Sciarrha  to  persuade  him  that  he, 
like  Sciarrha,  has  become  loyal  at  the  duke's  conver- 
sion; causes  Sciarrha  to  discover  Pisano's  disloyalty 
to  Amidea;  and  then,  having  revived  the  lustful  de- 
sires of  the  duke,  uses  Sciarrha's  purposed  assassina- 
tion of  Pisano  as  a  means  for  bringing  Sciarrha, 
Amidea,  and  the  duke  once  more  within  his  power. 
The  extent  of  this  power,  however,  he  at  length  mis- 
calculates: and  in  this  miscalculation,  Shirley  makes 

[203] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

occasion  for  Lorenzo's  fall.  When  Lorenzo  arrests 
Sciarrha  for  the  assassination  of  Pisano,  and  suggests 
that  Sciarrha  purchase  his  pardon  with  his  sister's 
shame,  Lorenzo  fails  to  see  that  he  is  rousing  ven- 
geance not  against  the  duke  only,  but  against  himself. 
When  Lorenzo  stabs  the  duke's  picture  that  he  may 
school  himself  to  stab  the  duke,  he  presents  not  only 
a  bit  of  effective  melodrama,  but  also  conspicuous 
evidence  of  his  growing  weakness.  This  weakness  he 
again  presents  when,  in  the  assassination  of  the  duke, 
he  stabs  his  victim  not  once  but  many  times.  Shirley 
in  this  has  prepared  us  well  for  the  catastrophe:  the 
inability  of  the  traitor  longer  to  deceive  Sciarrha  or 
even  to  penetrate  Sciarrha's  purpose,  and  his  inability 
to  defend  himself  against  Sciarrha's  sword. 

In  Sciarrha,  Shirley  has  created  another  powerful 
figure:  direct,  fiery,  easily  deceived,  yet  ultimately 
capable  of  matching  himself  in  subtlety  even  against 
the  intrigues  of  Lorenzo.  His  fundamental  charac- 
teristic, Shirley  emphasizes  in  his  first  mention  of 
Sciarrha: 

Prepare  Sciarrha,  but  be  very  wise 
In  the  discovery;  he  is  all  touchwood.1 

We  are  not  surprised,  therefore,  when,  at  the  opening 
of  the  second  act,  Shirley  presents  Sciarrha  in  the 

1  The  Traitor,  i,  ii ;  Works,  II,  no. 

[204] 


THE  TRAITOR 

midst  of  his  outburst  to  Lorenzo.  To  the  suggestion 
of  Lorenzo,  Sciarrha  reacts  so  rapidly  that  he  imag- 
ines each  thought  to  be  his  own.  The  dishonor  of 
Amidea,  the  dishonor  to  himself,  Lorenzo's  alleged 
enthusiasm  for  a  commonwealth— all  these  motives 
sweep  Sciarrha  forward  to  his  resolution  to  assassi- 
nate the  duke.  He  tells  the  duke's  commands  to 
Amidea;  he  tests  her  constancy  and  that  of  Florio; 
he  rejoices  in  their  virtue ;  and  he  vows  that  "the  Tar- 
quin  shall  be  entertain'd."2  Yet  he  consents  to 
Amidea's  attempt  to  win  the  young  monarch  to  a 
nobler  life,  and,  convinced  of  her  success,  defers  his 
purpose.  His  directness  and  credulity,  manifested  in 
his  inability  to  trick  Lorenzo  into  a  confession,  be- 
come still  more  evident  when,  upon  his  visit  of  de- 
fiance to  Lorenzo,  he  puts  himself  at  the  mercy  of 
Lorenzo's  swordsmen  and— more  dangerous— of  Lo- 
renzo's words.  He  believes  that  Lorenzo  has  been 
won  to  loyalty  and  virtue ;  and  he  never  for  a  moment 
suspects  Lorenzo's  purpose  in  permitting  him  to 
learn,  as  if  by  accident,  of  Pisano's  desertion  of 
Amidea  and  purposed  marriage  to  Oriana.  But  with 
his  assassination  of  Pisano,  Sciarrha  begins  to  see  the 
light.  He  becomes  convinced  of  Lorenzo's  treach- 
ery; he  realizes  at  last  that  Amidea  has  no  hope  but 
death.     He  resolves  to  trick  Lorenzo  and  the  duke: 

2  The  Traitor,  II,  i;  Works,  II,  120. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

to  send  them  not  Amidea  but  Amidea's  body;  to  seize 
that  moment  when  his  sister  shall  be  nearest  heaven, 
and  by  slaying  her  to  save  her  honor.  When,  to  save 
her  brother  from  such  guilt  as  this,  Amidea  pretends 
that  she  will  pay  Lorenzo's  price,  Sciarrha  strikes. 
Too  late  they  learn  each  other's  motives : 

Again,  again  forgive  me,  Amidea, 

And  pray  for  me.    Live  but  a  little  longer, 

To  hear  me  speak.    My  passion  hath  betray'd 

Thee  to  this  wound,  for  which  I  know  not  whether 

I  should  rejoice  or  weep,  since  thou  art  virtuous. 

The  duke,  whose  soul  is  black  again,  expects  thee 

To  be  his  whore. — Good  Death,  be  not  so  hasty.— 

The  agent  for  his  lust,  Lorenzo,  has 

My  oath  to  send  thee  to  his  bed :  for  otherwise, 

In  my  denial,  hell  and  they  decree, 

When  I  am  dead,  to  ravish  thee — mark  that, 

To  ravish  thee  !  — and  I  confess,  in  tears 

As  full  of  sorrow  as  thy  soul  of  innocence, 

In  my  religious  care  to  have  thee  spotless, 

I  did  resolve,  when  I  had  found  thee  ripe 

And  nearest  heaven,  with  all  thy  best  desires, 

To  send  thee  to  thy  peace.    Thy  feign'd  consent 

Hath  brought  thy  happiness  more  early  to  thee, 

And  saved  some  guilt.    Forgive  me  altogether.3 

Victorious  in  this,  Sciarrha  pursues  his  plan  to  lure 
the  duke  to  Amidea's  chamber.    Lorenzo  anticipates 

3  The  Traitor,  v,  i;  Works,  II,  176. 

[206] 


THE  TRAITOR 

Sciarrha  in  the  slaying  of  the  duke,  but  fails  to  de- 
ceive Sciarrha  as  to  his  ultimate  intent.  Sciarrha 
slays  Lorenzo,  and  so  dies  the  victor. 

In  Shirley's  Lorenzo,  we  have  seen  a  powerful 
character  becoming  ever  weaker  through  the  unnerv- 
ing effect  of  his  own  villainy;  in  Shirley's  Sciarrha,  a 
character  equally  powerful  attaining  ever  greater 
self-control  and  insight  through  suffering  and  strug- 
gle. No  such  development  appears  in  Shirley's  duke. 
He  does  not  grow,  either  for  good  or  ill;  he  merely 
vacillates.  He  believes  Lorenzo's  loyalty;  he  doubts 
it;  he  believes  again.  He  desires  Amidea;  he  turns 
virtuous;  he  desires  again.  He  is  unnerved  by 
Amidea's  dagger;  unnerved  by  the  mob;  unnerved 
by  Amidea's  death;  and  he  dies  under  the  hands  of 
his  "best  and  dearest  friend"  Lorenzo,  with  penance 
on  his  lips.  In  short,  Shirley's  Duke  Alexander  is  a 
figure  of  consistent  vacillation  and  weakness. 

In  contrast  with  this  vacillation  and  weakness  in 
the  duke,  Shirley  presents  us,  in  Amidea,  with  a  pic- 
ture of  consistent  strength.  That  Amidea  grows,  we 
cannot  say;  all  that  she  is  at  her  death  is  present,  po- 
tentially, in  her  first  appearance.  Yet  this  very  con- 
sistency—  especially  in  contrast  with  the  development 
of  Sciarrha  and  the  disintegration  of  Lorenzo — is  not 
without  its  charm.  Her  silent  horror  when  Sciarrha 
first  tells  her  of  the  duke's  desires;  her  resolution  to 

[2073 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

die  rather  than  to  yield  her  honor;  her  self-control 
when  Pisano,  without  warning,  cancels  their  be- 
trothal; and  her  determination  that  Sciarrha  shall 
not  know  of  this  dishonor:  all  manifest  the  nobility 
of  her  character.  That  this  nobility  is  more  than  a 
passive  capacity  for  suffering,  appears  in  Act  III, 
scene  iii,  in  her  control  over  Sciarrha  and  the  duke. 
That  her  nobility  is  not  without  the  softer  virtue  of 
forgiveness  appears  in  her  words  to  Pisano  and  Ori- 
ana  upon  their  wedding  morn : 

Amidea.     Not  for  my  sake,  but  for  your  own,  go  back, 
Or  take  some  other  way;  this  leads  to  death. 
My  brother — 

Pisano.     What  of  him  ? 

Ami.  Transported  with 

The  fury  of  revenge  for  my  dishonour, 
As  he  conceives,  for  'tis  against  my  will, 
Hath  vow'd  to  kill  you  in  your  nuptial  glory. 
Alas  !    I  fear  his  haste.    Now,  good  my  lord, 
Have  mercy  on  yourself.    I  do  not  beg 
Your  pity  upon  me  :  I  know  too  well 
You  cannot  love  me  now;  nor  would  I  rob 
This  virgin  of  your  faith,  since  you  have  pleas'd 
To  throw  me  from  your  love.    I  do  not  ask 
One  smile,  nor  one  poor  kiss;  enrich  this  maid, 
Created  for  those  blessings;  but  again 
I  would  beseech  you,  cherish  your  own  life, 
I  hough  I  be  lost  for  ever. 

[MS] 


THE  TRAITOR 

Alonzo.  It  is  worth 

Your  care,  my  lord,  if  there  be  any  danger. 

Pis.     Alas !  her  grief  hath  made  her  wild,  poor  lady. 
I  should  not  love  Oriana  to  go  back. 
Set  forward. — Amidea,  you  may  live 
To  be  a  happier  bride.    Sciarrha  is  not 
So  irreligious  to  profane  these  rites. 

Ami.     Will  you  not  then  believe  me? — Pray  persuade 
him; 
You  are  his  friends. — Lady,  it  will  concern 
You  most  of  all,  indeed;  I  fear  you'll  weep 
To  see  him  dead,  as  well  as  I. 

Pis.  No  more ; 

Go  forward. 

Ami.  I  have  done ;  pray  be  not  angry 

That  still  I  wish  you  well ;  may  heaven  divert 
All  harms  that  threaten  you;  full  blessings  crown 
Your  marriage !    I  hope  there  is  no  sin  in  this ; 
Indeed  I  cannot  choose  but  pray  for  you. 
This  might  have  been  my  wedding-day — 

Ori.  Good  heaven, 

I  would  it  were  !    My  heart  can  tell,  I  take 
No  joy  in  being  his  bride,  none  in  your  prayers. 
You  shall  have  my  consent  to  have  him  still; 
I  will  resign  my  place,  and  wait  on  you, 
If  you  will  marry  him. 

Ami.  Pray  do  not  mock  me ; 

But  if  you  do,  I  can  forgive  you  too. 

Ori.     Dear  Amidea,  do  not  think  I  mock 
Your  sorrow.    By  these  tears,  that  are  not  worn 

C209  3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

By  every  virgin  on  her  wedding-day, 

I  am  compelled  to  give  away  myself: 

Your  hearts  were  promised,  but  he  ne'er  had  mine. 

Am  I  not  wretched  too? 

Ami.  Alas,  poor  maid! 

We  two  keep  sorrow  alive  then,  but  I  prithee, 
When  thou  art  married,  love  him,  prithee  love  him, 
For  he  esteems  thee  well;  and  once  a  day 
Give  him  a  kiss  for  me;  but  do  not  tell  him 
'Twas  my  desire;  perhaps  'twill  fetch  a  sigh 
From  him,  and  I  had  rather  break  my  heart.4 

The  nobility  of  character  here  evident  in  Amidea's 
forgiveness  and  resignation,  appears  again  in  her 
meeting  with  her  brother  after  he  has  slain  Pisano. 
Weeping  both  for  the  dead  and  for  the  living,  she 
begs  that  her  own  death  may  purchase  pardon  for 
Sciarrha.  When  he  says  that  he  must  slay  her  to 
preserve  her,  she  tries  to  save  him  from  the  deed  by 
pretending  that  she  will  yield  her  honor  to  the  duke; 
when  he  stabs  her,  she  forgives  him;  and  to  their  bro- 
ther Florio  declares  that  she  herself  "drew  the 
weapon"  to  her  heart. 

Such,  then,  are  the  leading  characters  in  Shirley's 
Traitor:  Lorenzo,  Sciarrha,  the  duke,  and  Amidea. 
In  Amidea,  Shirley  has  created  a  character  beautiful 
for  its  consistent  virtue  and  its  pathos;  in  the  duke,  a 

*  The  Traitor,  iv,  ii ;  Works,  II,  163-165. 


THE  TRAITOR 

character  contemptible  for  its  weakness  and  its  vacil- 
lation; in  Sciarrha,  a  character  primarily  emotional 
that  grows  in  wisdom;  in  Lorenzo,  a  character  pri- 
marily intellectual  that  disintegrates  from  its  own 
villainy.  That  none  of  these  characters  is  built  on 
an  internal  struggle,  we  must  admit.  And  this  exter- 
nality of  struggle  makes  Shirley's  characterization, 
like  Shirley's  plot-structure,  less  notable  than  that  of 
Shakspere.  This  granted,  however,  Shirley's  charac- 
terization in  The  Traitor  deserves  our  highest  praise. 
Each  of  the  major  figures  is  living  and  distinct, 
clearly  contrasted  with  his  fellows.  With  each  re- 
reading of  the  play,  we  follow  them  with  stronger 
interest. 

Before  we  leave  The  Traitor,  two  topics  remain  to 
be  considered:  the  comic  relief,  and  the  verse.  The 
comic  element  centers  about  the  figure  of  Depazzi,  a 
parvenu  ennobled  by  Lorenzo's  favor.  In  his  case, 
perhaps,  we  should  modify  our  judgment  that  the 
play  shows  no  instance  of  internal  struggle.  In  him, 
his  loyalty  to  Lorenzo's  interest  struggles  most  comi- 
cally with  his  fears.  When  Lorenzo  is  accused  of 
treason,  Depazzi's  frightened  "asides"  admitting  all 
the  charges,  make  spicy  comment  on  his  lord's  de- 
nial. When  his  patron's  plots  have  involved  him 
more  deeply  still  in  treason,  he  causes  his  page  to 

Can] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

arraign  him  before  an  imaginary  court;  and  when  the 
page,  rising  to  the  occasion,  charges  him  with  a  series 
of  wholly  imaginary  crimes,  Depazzi  is  so  thor- 
oughly alarmed  that  he  forgets  himself,  begins  a  real 
confession,  beats  the  page,  and  finally  dismisses  him 
with  gold.  When  Lorenzo's  first  attempt  against  the 
duke  has  failed,  Depazzi  brings  him  fifteen  hundred 
crowns  for  permission  to  resign  his  post  and  flee  the 
city.  Not  only  is  all  this  comic  matter  admirable 
fooling  in  itself,  but  it  is  far  more  closely  joined  to 
the  major  plot  than  is  usual  outside  of  Shakspere. 

With  regard  to  the  verse,  let  us  first  examine  a  typi- 
cal passage  from  the  opening  act— the  scene  in  which 
Lorenzo  defends  himself  against  the  charge  of  trea- 
son.   The  passage  following  will  serve  our  purpose: 

Lorenzo.     .  .  .  Ask  this  good  counsellor,  or  these 

gentlemen, 
Whose  faiths  are  tried,  whose  cares  are  always  waking 
About  your  person,  how  have  I  appeared 
To  them,  that  thus  I  should  be  rendered  hateful 
To  you  and  my  good  country?    They  are  virtuous, 
And  dare  not  blemish  a  white  faith,  accuse 
My  sound  heart  of  dishonour.    Sir,  you  must 
Pardon  my  bold  defence;  my  virtue  bleeds 
By  your  much  easiness,  and  I  am  compelled 
To  break  all  modest  limits,  and  to  waken 
Your  memory  (if  it  be  not  too  late 

[212] 


THE  TRAITOR 

To  say  you  have  one)  with  the  story  of 
My  fair  deservings.    Who,  sir,  overthrew 
With  his  designs,  your  late  ambitious  brother, 

A 

Hippolito,  who,  like  a  meteor,  threatened 
A  black  and  fatal  omen? 

Duke.  'Twas  Lorenzo. 

Lor.     Be  yet  as  just,  and  say  whose  art  directed 
A  countermine  to  check  the  pregnant  hopes 
Of  Salviati,  who,  for  his  cardinal's  cap, 
In  Rome  was  potent,  and  here  popular? 

Duke.     None  but  Lorenzo. 

Depazzi.  Admirable  traitor!     [J side.] 

Lor.     Whose  service  was  commended  when  the  exiles, 
One  of  whose  tribe  accuseth  me,  had  raised 
Commotions  in  our  Florence?    When  the  hinge 
Of  state  did  faint  under  the  burthen,  and 
The  people  sweat  with  their  own  fears,  to  think 
The  soldier  should  inhabit  their  calm  dwellings, 
Who  then  rose  up  your  safety,  and  crushed  all 
Their  plots  to  air? 

Duke.  Our  cousin,  dear  Lorenzo. 

Lor.     When  he  that  should  reward,  forgets  the  men 
That  purchased  his  security,  'tis  virtue 
To  boast  a  merit.    With  my  services 
I  have  not  starved  your  treasury;  the  grand 
Captain  Gonzales  accounted  to  King  Ferdinand 
Three  hundred  thousands  crowns  for  spies;  what  bills 
Have  I  brought  in  for  such  intelligence? 

Dep.     I  do  grow  hearty.  [Jside.~] 

Duke.  All  thy  actions 

C2I3] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Stand  fresh  before  us,  and  confirm  thou  art 
Our  best  and  dearest  friend;  thus  we  assure 
Our  confidence ;  they  love  us  not  that  feed 
One  jealous  thought  of  our  dear  coz,  Lorenzo.5 

Now  this  is  not  a  "purple  passage"  but  a  group  of 
lines  that,  in  most  respects,  is  thoroughly  representa- 
tive of  the  play  throughout.  It  is  not  great  poetry; 
yet,  if  read  aloud,  it  will  be  found  metrical,  melodi- 
ous, and,  above  all,  dramatically  effective.  As  to  the 
meter,  it  is  varied  but  not  irregular.  The  position  of 
the  pause  changes  pleasantly  from  line  to  line.  In- 
versions, substitutions,  and  elisions  occur,  but  not  too 
often.  In  this  particular  passage,  the  percentage  of 
run-on  lines  chances  to  be  high.  Had  we  examined  a 
longer  passage,  however,  we  should  have  found  that 
Shirley's  use  of  run-on  lines  in  The  Traitor  closely 
corresponds  to  that  of  Shakspere  in  his  later  plays. 
As  to  his  meter,  therefore,  Shirley  is  here  no  anar- 
chist. As  for  melody,  the  passage  quoted  is  not  con- 
spicuous; yet  surely  it  is  pleasing  to  the  ear,  as  in  the 
lines: 

A  countermine  to  check  the  pregnant  hopes 
Of  Salviati,  who,  for  his  cardinal's  cap, 
In  Rome  was  potent,  and  here  popular. 

The  Traitor,  I,  ii  ;  Works,  II,   I08-IIO. 

C2I4] 


THE  TRAITOR 

And  finally,  as  for  dramatic  effectiveness,  read  the 
lines  aloud  and  note  how  well  they  are  adapted  to 
delivery.  Observe  especially  how  frequently  the  final 
word  of  an  unstopped  line  is  one  that  logically  de- 
serves distinction.  Gentlemen,  waking,  appeared, 
hateful,  virtuous,  accuse,  must,  bleeds,  compelled, 
waken,  too  late,  overthrew,  brother,  threatened,  Lo- 
renzo: in  sixteen  consecutive  lines,  but  one  concludes 
with  an  unemphatic  ending.  When  the  logical  stress 
comes  thus  upon  the  final  word,  we  need  no  longer 
pause  to  keep  the  verse-form  perfect. 

In  respect  to  mastery  of  verse,  however,  Shirley  in 
The  Traitor  does  something  more  than  maintain  this 
passing  standard  of  acceptability.  When  occasion 
serves,  as  in  the  sad  farewell  of  Amidea,  his  muse  is 
genuinely  poetic: 

Your  fathers  knew  him  well :  one  who  will  never 
Give  cause  I  should  suspect  him  to  forsake  me; 
A  constant  lover;  one  whose  lips,  though  cold, 
Distil  chaste  kisses.    Though  our  bridal  bed 
Be  not  adorned  with  roses,  'twill  be  green; 
We  shall  have  virgin  laurel,  cypress,  yew, 
To  make  us  garlands;  though  no  pine  do  burn, 
Our  nuptial  shall  have  torches;  and  our  chamber 
Shall  be  cut  out  of  marble,  where  we'll  sleep, 
Free  from  all  care  for  ever.    Death,  my  lord, 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

I  hope,  shall  be  my  husband.    Now,  farewell. 
Although  no  kiss,  accept  my  parting  tear, 
And  give  me  leave  to  wear  my  willow  here.6 

Swinburne,  who  held  that  "as  a  rule"  Shirley's 
plays  are  "wearisome  and  conventional,  anaemic  and 
invertebrate,"7  accounted  The  Traitor  "the  one  play 
which  gives  its  author  a  place  among  the  tragic  poets 
of  Shakespeare's  age  and  country."8  In  view  of  this 
all  but  entire  disapproval  of  the  plays  of  Shirley— a 
disapproval  due,  as  we  shall  find,  too  often  to  his 
ignorance  of  the  plays  discussed— Swinburne's  cor- 
dial interest  in  and  favorable  opinion  of  the  plot,  the 
characterization,  and  the  verse  of  Shirley's  Traitor, 
holds  a  significance  that  warrants  some  quotation: 

"The  gravest  error  or  defect  of  Shirley's  work  as 
a  dramatist,"  writes  Swinburne,  "is  usually  percep- 
tible in  the  management  of  his  underplots;  his  hand 
was  neither  strong  enough  to  weld  nor  skilful  enough 
to  weave  them  into  unity  or  harmony  with  the  main 
action;  and  the  concurrent  or  alternate  interests, 
through  lack  of  coherence  and  fusion,  become  a 
source  of  mere  worry  and  weariness  to  the  distracted 
attention  and  the  jaded  memory.  But  the  main  plot 
of  The  Traitor,  founded  on  the  assassination  or  im- 

a  The  Traitor,  iv,  ii;  Works,  II,  165. 

7  In  The  Fortnightly  Review,  LIII  (n.s.,  XLVIl),  462. 

8  Ibid.,  467. 

[216] 


THE  TRAITOR 

molation  of  Alessandro  de'  Medici  by  his  kinsman 
Lorenzino,  ...  is  very  neatly  and  happily  inter- 
woven with  a  story  which  at  first  sight  recalls  that 
of  the  fatal  marriage  and  breach  of  promise  through 
which  the  name  of  Buondelmonti  had  attained  a  sig- 
nificance so  tragical  for  Florence  three  hundred  and 
twenty-two  years  earlier.  .  .  .  This  ...  is  skilfully 
and  delicately  adapted  to  bring  into  fuller  relief  the 
most  beautiful  figure  on  all  the  overcrowded  stage  of 
Shirley's  invention.  His  place  among  our  poets 
would  be  very  much  higher  than  it  is  if  he  could  have 
left  us  but  one  or  two  others  as  thoroughly  realized 
and  as  attractively  presented  as  the  noble  and  pa- 
thetic conception  of  Amidea.  There  is  something  in 
the  part  which  reminds  us  of  Beaumont's  Aspatia; 
but  even  though  the  forsaken  heroine  of  the  elder 
poet  has  yet  more  exquisite  poetry  to  utter  than  any 
that  Shirley  could  produce,  her  character  is  less  noble 
and  attractive,  the  manner  of  her  death  is  less  natural 
and  far  less  touching.  The  lover  in  either  case  is 
equally  contemptible;  but  the  heroic  part  of  Sciarrha 
is  as  superior  in  truthfulness  as  it  was  inferior  in 
popularity  to  the  famous  but  histrionic  part  of  the 
boastful  martialist  Melantius.  The  king  in  The 
Maid's  Tragedy  is  certainly  not  better  drawn  than 
his  equally  licentious  but  less  tyrannous  counterpart 
in  The  Traitor;  and  the  very  effective  scene  in  which 

C2173 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Calianax  denounces  Melantius  to  the  king,  only  to  be 
stormed  down  and  put  to  silence  by  the  denial  of  his 
accomplice  and  the  laughing  incredulity  of  the  vic- 
tim, is  surpassed  by  the  admirable  device  in  which  the 
chief  conspirator's  superb  and  subtle  audacity  of  re- 
source confounds  the  loyalty  of  Sciarrha  and  confirms 
the  confidence  of  Alessandro.  A  more  ingenious, 
natural,  and  striking  situation— admirable  in  itself, 
and  more  admirable  in  its  introduction  and  its  assis- 
tance to  the  progress  of  evolution  of  the  plot — it 
would  be  difficult  to  find  in  any  play.  The  swiftness 
and  sharpness  of  suspicious  intuition,  the  prompti- 
tude and  impudence  of  intelligent  hypocrisy,  which 
distinguish  the  conduct  of  Shirley's  ideal  conspira- 
tor, are  far  above  the  level  of  his  usual  studies  or 
sketches  of  the  same  or  a  similar  kind.  Nor  is  there, 
if  I  mistake  not,  so  much  of  really  beautiful  writing, 
of  pure  and  vigorous  style,  of  powerful  and  pathetic 
simplicity,  in  any  earlier  or  later  work  of  its  author. 
Of  Shakespeare  or  of  Marlowe  or  of  Webster  we  can 
hardly  hope  to  be  reminded  while  reading  Shirley; 
but  we  are  reminded  of  Fletcher  at  his  best  by  the 
cry  of  sympathy  with  which  Amidea  receives  the 
5 u ranee  that  the  rival  who  has  unwittingly  and  re- 
luctantly supplanted  her  is  also  the  victim  of  her  lov- 
er*8  infidelity  and  ingratitude: 

on 


THE  TRAITOR 

"Alas,  poor  maid! 
We  two  keep  sorrow  alive  then. 

This  indeed,  if  I  may  venture  to  say  so,  seems  to  me 
a  touch  not  unworthy  of  Webster  himself— the  near- 
est of  all  our  poets  to  Shakespeare  in  command  of 
spontaneous  and  concentrated  expression  for  tragic 
and  pathetic  emotion."9 

Whether  or  not  we  accept  this  enthusiastic  opinion 
of  Swinburne  in  its  entirety,  our  estimate  of  The 
Traitor  may  well  be  highly  favorable.  Its  verse  is 
acceptable  and,  at  times,  genuinely  poetic;  its  comic 
relief  is  entertaining,  original,  and  skilfully  corre- 
lated with  the  serious  plot;  its  characters,  although 
embodying  no  internal  struggle,  are  nobly  conceived 
and  clearly  delineated  ;  its  tragic  plot,  although  based 
upon  external  struggle,  is  conspicuously  well  con- 
structed; its  individual  scenes  are  notably  effective. 
In  the  lustful  tyrant,  in  the  depraved  villain,  in  the 
brother  as  pander,  and  in  the  use  of  the  corpse,  the 
play  presents  the  familiar  material  of  Webster-Tour- 
neurian  tragedy  of  lust  and  horror;  but  does  so  with- 
out repulsiveness.  In  the  emphasis  upon  love,  in  the 
contrast  of  the  idyllic-sentimental  with  the  tragic- 
horrible,  in  the  clever  use  of  surprise,  and  in  the 
Amintor-Aspatia  personages,  it  presents,  but  with  far 

9  A.  C.  Swinburne,  "James  Shirley,"  in    The  Fortnightly  Review, 
Lin  (n.s.,  xlvii),  467-468. 

[219] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

more  probability,  the  material  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  in  romantic  tragedy.  The  elements  indeed 
are  old ;  but  the  effect  is  new.  For  a  major  dramatist 
at  the  height  of  his  career,  The  Traitor  would  have 
been  a  creditable  production;  for  a  minor  dramatist 
scarce  out  of  his  apprenticeship,  The  Traitor  is  a 
memorable  achievement. 


[220] 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  FIRST  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONCLUDED 

FROM  THE  HUMOROUS  COURTIER  TO  THE  BALL 

OF  the  six  plays  thus  far  considered,  three— 
The  Maid's  Revenge,  The  Grateful  Ser- 
vant and  The  Traitor— belong  to  the  ro- 
mantic school  of  Shakspere  and  of  Fletcher;  one, 
Love  Tricks,  is  a  mixture  of  realism  and  romanti- 
cism; and  the  remaining  two,  The  Wedding  and  The 
Witty  Fair  One,  belong  primarily  to  the  realistic 
school  of  Jonson.  Of  the  five  plays  that  we  must  now 
consider,  the  five  plays  following  The  Traitor  in 
1 63 1  and  1632,  all,  for  one  reason  or  another,  must  be 
classed  as  further  essays  in  the  realistic  style.  The 
Humorous  Courtier,  licensed  as  The  Duke,  May  17, 
163 1,  has  been  called  by  Schelling1  a  romantic  com- 
edy. To  most  readers,  however,  notwithstanding  its 
Italian  setting,  the  play  will  seem  primarily  a  comedy 
of  humors.  Love's  Cruelty,  licensed  November  14, 
1 63 1,  has  likewise  an  Italian  scene;  but,  in  subject 
and  in  atmosphere,  this  tragedy  is  to  be  classed  with 
the   realistic   plays   of   London   life   and   manners. 

1  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  II,  313-314. 

[221] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  licensed  January  10, 
1 63 1/2;  Hyde  Park,  licensed  April  20,  1632;  and 
The  Ball,  licensed  November  16,  1632,  are  all  indis- 
putably comedies  of  manners.  That  Shirley,  after 
producing  so  excellent  a  romantic  tragedy  as  The 
Traitor,  should  devote  himself  to  the  writing  of  real- 
istic plays,  is  indicative  of  the  popularity  of  this  type 
of  drama.  Realism  in  comedy— derived  from  that 
of  Fletcher  and  of  Jonson— was  leading  onward 
toward  the  realism  of  the  Restoration.  In  this  move- 
ment, Shirley  had  his  part:  in  the  five  successive  plays 
with  which  we  are  now  to  conclude  our  account  of 
Shirley's  first  dramatic  period,  his  dominant  charac- 
teristic is  realism  and  not  romanticism. 

In  The  Humorous  Courtier,  licensed  as  The  Duke, 
May  17,  1 63 1,  Shirley  produced  a  new  and  more 
poetic  version  of  Jonson's  Every  Man  out  of  his  Hu- 
mour: a  version  in  which  a  duchess  of  Mantua  plays 
the  physician  to  her  entire  court.  "They  are  mad 
humours,"  she  says,  "and  I  must  physic  them."2  The 
theme  is  productive  of  a  well-knit  plot.  Foscari, 
Duke  of  Parma,  who  has  been  wooing  the  Duchess 
of  Mantua,  suddenly  disappears  from  her  court;  and 
the  duchess  announces  her  intent  to  choose  a  husband 
from  among  her  lords.  Encouraged  by  her  new  fa- 
vorite,  Giotto,   each   courtier  believes   himself   the 

2  The  Humorous  Courtier,  v,  iii;  Works,  IV,  600. 

[222] 


THE   HUMOROUS  COURTIER 

chosen  man,  and  displays  in  his  wooing  his  character- 
istic weakness.  Volterre,  like  Lodam  in  The  Wed- 
ding, but  with  a  better  right,  boasts  of  his  fluency  in 
foreign  tongues;  Depazzi  practises  set  speeches,  such 
as  Shirley  had  ridiculed  in  The  School  of  Comple- 
ment, six  years  before;  Contarini,  who  has  the  mis- 
fortune to  be  married,  endeavors— happily  without 
success— to  bribe  Giotto  to  commit  adultery  with 
his  wife  so  that  he  may  divorce  her — a  device  pre- 
viously used  by  Shirley  in  The  Grateful  Servant; 
and  Orseolo,  the  humorous  courtier  par  excellence, 
whose  humor  it  has  been  to  pretend  abhorrence  of  all 
women,  confesses  now  the  utmost  licentiousness  in  the 
expectation  that  this  will  make  him  a  suitor  more 
acceptable.  In  the  final  scene,  the  duchess  makes 
sport  of  each  in  turn,  and  then  announces  that  her 
servant,  Giotto,  who  has  been  assisting  in  the  jest,  is 
really  the  missing  Duke  of  Parma  in  disguise  and  her 
accepted  husband.  To  the  modern  reader,  this  play 
is  far  from  pleasing:  its  mirth  is  flat;  its  episodes  are 
repulsive.  To  an  audience,  however,  that  was  fond 
of  humors  and  that  found  nothing  offensive  in  immor- 
ality, The  Humorous  Courtier  may  well  have  been 
diverting.  The  main  conception  certainly  is  clever. 
The  old  title-page— a  witness,  however,  not  above 
suspicion  — asserts  that  the  play  had  been  "presented 
with  good  applause." 

[2231] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

The  other  play  belonging  to  this  year  is  Love's 
Cruelty,  a  tragedy  licensed  November  14,  163 1. 
Schelling  refers  to  its  "romantic  Italian  atmo- 
sphere";3 yet  its  scene  might  well  have  been  contem- 
porary London,  and  its  tone  differs  but  little  from 
that  of  the  more  serious  and  poetic  of  Shirley's  come- 
dies of  manners.  Indeed,  as  we  shall  note  presently 
in  connection  with  The  Example,  realism  and  ro- 
mance in  Shirley  are  ofttimes  closely  blended.  Typi- 
cal of  this  blending  is  the  passage  in  which  Shirley 
pays  tribute  to  "the  soul  of  the  immortal  English 
Jonson."4 

The  scene  of  Love's  Cruelty  is  Ferrara.  Clariana, 
betrothed  to  Bellamente,  is  curious  to  meet  his  much- 
praised  friend  Hippolito.  Concealing  her  identity, 
she  visits  him.  He,  called  away  by  a  summons  from 
the  duke,  locks  her  in  his  room;  then,  finding  himself 
delayed,  sends  Bellamente  to  release  her.  Although 
astonished  to  find  his  betrothed  in  such  a  situation, 
Bellamente  accepts  her  explanation,  and  marries  her. 
Clariana,  however,  leads  on  Hippolito  to  commit 
adultery.  Bellamente  takes  them  in  the  act,  and,  after 
a  sensational  scene,  dismisses  them  unpunished. 
Meanwhile,  the  Duke  of  Ferrara  has  been  endeavor- 
ing to  seduce  Eubella,  a  charming  little  country  girl, 

8  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  II,  324. 
*  Love's  Cruelty,  II,  ii ;  Works,  II,  213. 

[>24:] 


love's  cruelty 

daughter  of  Sebastiano;  and  to  effect  his  ends,  the 
duke  has  employed  Hippolito  as  his  spokesman. 
Hippolito,  however,  overcome  with  shame  for  his 
crime  against  Bellamente  and  won  by  the  virtue  of 
Eubella,  ceases  to  plead  the  duke's  lust,  and  for  him- 
self makes  an  offer  of  honorable  marriage  to  Eubella. 
The  duke  discovers  the  treachery  of  his  ambassador, 
and,  himself  ashamed,  confirms  their  purposed  mar- 
riage. To  prevent  this  marriage,  Clariana,  pretend- 
ing that  she  is  to  reveal  a  plot  by  Bellamente  against 
Hippolito,  summons  him  to  her  chamber  on  his  wed- 
ding morn.  She  finds  him,  however,  true  to  Eubella 
and  indignant  at  the  deception.  At  that  moment, 
they  are  found  by  Bellamente.  Clariana  stabs  Hip- 
polito, and  he  wounds  her  with  his  sword.  She  lives 
only  long  enough  to  beg  forgiveness  of  her  husband ; 
Hippolito,  only  until  the  arrival  of  Eubella.  Bella- 
mente dies  from  the  shock  of  the  discovery.  The  duke 
resolves  to  console  Eubella  by  marrying  her  himself. 
As  compared  with  The  Traitor,  this  tragedy  is  a 
backward  step :  the  theme  has  less  of  tragic  grandeur; 
the  verse  is  less  notable;  the  comic  relief  is  savorless; 
and  the  scene  in  which  the  lustful  monarch  renounces 
his  pursuit  of  the  maiden  and  confirms  her  betrothal 
to  her  lover,  seems,  when  compared  with  Shirley's 
later  handling  of  the  situation  in  The  Royal  Master, 
poor  indeed.     Nevertheless,   Love's   Cruelty   is   not 

[225] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

mediocre.  The  two  plots  are  skilfully  combined; 
the  main  action  affords  occasion  for  several  truly 
effective  scenes;  and  the  psychology  of  the  Clariana- 
Hippolito  intrigue  is  far  from  conventional.  More- 
over, the  use  of  realism  in  tragedy,  although  not  un- 
precedented, is  sufficiently  unusual  to  invite  remark, 
both  for  its  unflinching  truth  and  for  its  severe  moral- 
ity. Although  I  cannot  rate  this  play  as  highly  as 
have  some,5  I  account  it  a  most  interesting  experiment 
in  realistic  tragedy. 

To  the  next  year,  1632,  belong  four  plays :  Changes, 
or  Love  in  a  Maze,  Hyde  Park,  and  The  Ball,  all 
comedies  of  London  life  and  manners,  and  a  light 
romantic  play,  The  Arcadia.  The  last  of  these,  I 
reserve  for  the  opening  chapter  on  Shirley's  Second 
Dramatic  Period ;  the  others  shall  be  considered  here. 

Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  was  licensed  January 
10,  163 1/2.  Its  plot  amply  justifies  its  title.  Gerard, 
a  young  gentleman  of  fashion,  finds  himself  in  love 
with  two  sisters,  Chrysolina  and  Aurelia;  and,  al- 
though both  return  his  affection,  he  is  unable  to  make 
choice  between  the  two.  He  begs  his  friend  Thor- 
nay  to  love  either  of  the  sisters  so  that  he  himself  may 
choose  the  other.  The  two  friends,  however,  soon 
have  a  disagreement;  and  the  sisters  dismiss  them 

5  Compare,  however,  Swinburne,  "James  Shirley,"  in  The  Fort- 
nightly Review,  liu  (n.s.,  xlvii),  468-469. 

[226] 


CHANGES,   OR   LOVE   IX   A   MAZE 

both.  Now  Thornay,  as  we  learn,  was  previously 
betrothed  to  a  third  maiden,  Eugenia.  His  rival, 
Yongrave,  in  that  exaggerated  devotion  which  Shir- 
lev  has  already  depicted  in  Foscari  of  The  Grateful 
Servant  and,  less  sincerely,  in  Cosmo  of  The  Traitor ', 
recalls  Thornay  to  Eugenia,  and  brings  about  their 
marriage.  Then,  finding  that  his  self-sacrifice  has  in- 
spired a  love  for  him  in  Chrysolina,  Yongrave  rises 
to  the  occasion  and  marries  her.  This  marriage  re- 
lieves Gerard  of  the  necessity  of  making  choice  be- 
tween the  sisters;  and  he  contentedly  marries  Aurelia, 
the  one  remaining. 

As  a  supplement  to  this  somewhat  complicated 
plot,  we  have  a  group  of  characters  of  humor:  Caper- 
wit,  a  poetaster;  Caperwit's  page  disguised  as  Lady 
Bird;  and  Sir  Gervase  Simple,  a  newly  knighted 
country  gull  — all  of  whom  are  intended  to  provide 
diversion  of  the  Jonsonian  variety.  There  is  also,  in 
the  final  scene,  a  masque.  The  play  is  clean  enough, 
but  slight  in  value. 

Of  a  much  more  notable  quality*  is  Hyde  Park, 
licensed  April  20,  1632.  Its  plot  is  loosely  knit;  but 
its  characters  and  setting  constitute  a  marvelously 
realistic  picture  of  the  fashionable  life  of  Shirley's 
dav.  The  structure  of  the  play  involves  three  stories 
which  fail  to  unite  but  which  sometimes  intersect. 
The  first  is  merely  the  return  of  a  seven-years-lost 

[227] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

husband,  Bonavent,  to  find  his  wife  about  to  marry 
Lacy,  and  the  steps  by  which  he  recovers  Mistress 
Bonavent— to  her  entire  satisfaction.  The  second 
story  deals  with  a  Mistress  Carol,  whose  avowed  hu- 
mor it  is  to  jeer  her  suitors  and  put  them  all  to  scorn: 

I  will  not  have  my  tongue  tied  up,  when  I've 

A  mind  to  jeer  my  suitors.   .   .   . 

For  I  must  have  my  humour;  I'm  sick  else.6 

Finally  one  of  her  lovers,  Fairfield,  desires  a  boon: 
that  Mistress  Carol,  after  setting  aside  anything  that 
she  would  not  willingly  grant,  will  permit  him  any- 
thing else  that  he  may  ask.  She  agrees;  makes  all 
the  exceptions  she  can  think  of — to  love  him,  to  marry 
him,  and  so  forth;  and  then  finds  that  his  request  is 
this:  that  she  shall  never  desire  his  company.  She 
soon  finds,  of  course,  that  she  cannot  do  without  him; 
and  her  efforts  to  call  him  back  without  appearing  so 
to  do,  form  one  of  the  most  amusing  elements  in  the 
play.  The  third  story  is  another  of  the  familiar 
themes  of  Shirley:  the  reformation  of  a  libertine. 
Frank  Trier,  to  test  the  virtue  of  Julietta,  his  be- 
trothed, introduces  her  to  Lord  Bonvile  with  the  im- 
plication that  she  is  a  lady  of  pleasure.  She,  however, 
arouses  his  lordship's  better  self,  rewards  her  lover's 
want  of  faith  by  annulling  their  betrothal,  and  ends 

0  Hyde  Park,  n,  iv;  Works,  II,  490. 

C2283 


HYDE  PARK 

by  receiving  the  young  lord's  offer  of  honorable  mar- 
riage. 

These  plots,  as  I  have  said,  are  without  logical  con- 
nection :  even  Love  in  a  Maze  has  more  of  unity.  In 
other  respects,  however,  Hyde  Park  marks  an  ad- 
vance in  Shirley's  workmanship.  The  characters  in 
this  play  are  more  distinct  than  those  of  earlier  plays ; 
and  they  are  more  like  real  people.  Unlike  the  char- 
acters in  The  Witty  Fair  One,  they  inspire  in  us  at 
least  a  beginning  of  human  sympathy;  we  rejoice 
with  them  in  their  good  fortune.  Additional  interest 
arises  from  the  fact  that  the  third  and  fourth  acts  are 
laid  in  Hyde  Park  on  a  racing  day.  Here  the  betting 
and  the  races— foot  and  horse— form  a  lively  setting 
for  the  action.  Pepys  records,  in  1668,  two  years  after 
Shirley's  death,  that  in  this  scene  horses  were  brought 
upon  the  stage— "the  earliest  record,"  thinks  Dyce, 
"of  horses  being  introduced."7  We  may  note  also 
that  these  Hyde  Park  scenes  vaguely  suggest  the 
Bartholomew  Fair  of  Jonson,  and  that  the  women 
have  something  in  common  with  Fletcher's  witty 
heroines;  but  we  must  not  press  this  similarity  too 
far. 

Dyce  calls  Hyde  Park  a  "very  lively  and  elegant 
comedy";8  but  Ward  is  more  exact  in  saying  that 


7  Dyce,  in  Works,  I,  xvii-xviii. 

8  Ibid.,  xviii. 


[229] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

"only  in  so  far  as  it  is  descriptive  of  .  .  .  the  realities 
of  contemporary  life  and  manners,"9  is  the  play  of 
special  interest.  Its  importance  for  us  is  as  a  forward 
step  in  the  career  of  Shirley  as  a  dramatist:  a  greater 
mastery  in  character-drawing  and  in  the  depiction  of 
a  realistic  setting. 

Hyde  Park,  as  we  have  noted,  is  a  realistic  sketch 
of  the  fashionable  citizen  society  of  London;  The 
Ball,  licensed  November  16,  1632,  is  an  equally  real- 
istic picture  of  the  life  and  manners  of  the  nobility. 
In  Hyde  Park,  the  women  are  addressed  as  "Mis- 
tress," and  are  immensely  flattered  by  the  presence  of 
even  one  real  lord;  in  The  Ball,  the  women  are  ad- 
dressed as  "Lady,"  and  the  least  among  their  suitors 
claims  to  be  cousin  to  an  earl.  This  difference  gives 
to  the  latter  play  a  certain  elegance  of  tone  that  is 
lacking  in  the  former:  an  elegance— according  to  the 
standards  of  the  day.  In  the  seventeenth  century, 
it  must  be  remembered,  the  manners  of  even  the  most 
polite  society  still  possessed  a  coarseness  that  is  to-day 
well-nigh  inconceivable.  The  wit  of  Lady  Lucina 
in  The  Ball  is  as  remote  from  modern  gentlehood  as 
is  the  wit  of  Mistress  Carol  in  Hyde  Park. 

That  Shirley's  unflattering  pictures  in  The  Ball 
gave  offense  to  at  least  one  follower  of  the  court, 
appears  from  the  official  entry,  previously  quoted, 

8  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  in,  106. 

C23o] 


THE   BALL 

from  the  office-book  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  Master 
of  the  Revels: 

1 8  Nov.  1632.  In  the  play  of  The  Ball,  written  by 
Sherley,  and  acted  by  the  Queens  players,  ther  were 
divers  personated  so  naturally,  both  of  lords  and  others 
of  the  court,  that  I  took  it  ill,  and  would  have  forbidden 
the  play,  but  that  Biston  promiste  many  things  which  I 
found  faulte  withall  should  be  left  out,  and  that  he  would 
not  suffer  it  to  be  done  by  the  poett  any  more,  who  de- 
serves to  be  punisht;  and  the  first  that  offends  in  this  kind, 
of  poets  or  players,  shall  be  sure  of  publique  punish- 
ment.10 

If,  then,  the  printed  version  of  The  Ball  is  but  a  di- 
luted version,  what  was  the  original?  Even  in  the 
revised  form,  society  makes  a  sorry  showing.  If,  in 
the  original,  "ther  were  divers  personated  so  natu- 
rally, both  of  lords  and  others  of  the  court,"  need  we 
wonder  that  some  should  take  offense  at  Shirley's 
realism? 

Shirley's  own  opinion  on  this  question,  as  ex- 
pressed in  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  licensed  three  years 
later,  and  the  possible  bearing  of  these  satires  upon 
Shirley's  departure  for  Dublin  shortly  after,  we  have 
considered  in  Chapter  IV,  above.  Our  immediate 
interest  in  these  comments  by  Herbert  and  by  Shirley 

10  Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  III,  231-232. 

[23I] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

is  rather  in  relation  to  certain  criticisms  which  Swin- 
burne has  seen  fit  to  pass  upon  Shirley's  character- 
drawing  in  The  Ball.  Herbert,  we  have  seen,  com- 
plained that  divers  lords  and  others  of  the  court  were 
personated  too  "naturally,"  and  commanded  that 
these  natural  touches  be  "left  out."  Shirley  testifies 
that 

.   .   .  had  the  poet  not  been  bribed  to  a  modest 

Expression  of  your  antic  gambols  in't, 

Some  darks  had  been  discover'd,  and  the  deeds  too.11 

This  passage  from  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  Swinburne 
knew;  but  its  real  meaning,  as  indicated  by  the  pas- 
sage in  the  office-book  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  he  most 
unfortunately  perverts: 

The  ladies  and  their  lovers  [says  this  critic],  are  so 
lamentably  shadowy  and  shapeless  that  a  modern  reader 
has  no  difficulty  in  understanding  the  curious  admission 
of  the  poet  in  a  later  and  better  and  less  reticent  play 
that  he  had  been  "bribed  to  a  modest  admission  12  of  their 
antic  gambols."  Had  he  rejected  the  bribe,  supposing  it 
to  have  ever  been  offered,  a  less  decorous  and  a  less  vacu- 
ous comedy  might  have  been  better  worth  our  reading: 
but  possibly,  if  not  probably,  the  assertion  or  imputation 

11  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  I,  i;  Works,  IV,  9. 

12  Swinburne,  be  it  noted,  is  inaccurate  even  in  his  quotation:  Shir- 
ley wrote  "expression,"  not  "admission." 


THE  BALL 

may  be  merely  the  part  of  the  character  to  whom  it  is 
assigned.13 

That  the  lines  quoted  by  Swinburne  are  to  be  inter- 
preted rather  as  Shirley's  protest  against  the  censor- 
ship of  Herbert,  must  be  evident  to  any  careful  stu- 
dent. Had  Swinburne  been  more  familiar  with  his 
subject,  and  especially  with  the  office-book  of  the 
Master  of  the  Revels,  a  less  clever  and  less  superficial 
criticism  might  have  been  better  worth  our  quoting.14 
"The  main  purpose  of  this  comedy,"  says  Ward, 
"seems  to  have  been  to  give  the  lie  to  the  scandalous 
reports  which  had  arisen  in  connection  with  the 
first  attempts  at  establishing  Subscription  Balls."15 
Whether  the  aim  of  the  dramatist  were  so  kindly,  we 
have  reason  to  doubt;  but  he  certainly  took  advantage 
of  popular  interest  in  these  gatherings.  For  his  en- 
veloping action  Shirley  chose  the  preparations  for  the 
ball,  including  frequent  dancing-lessons  conducted 
by  Monsieur  Le  Frisk;  and,  for  the  scene  of  his  clos- 
ing act,  the  ball  itself.  His  plots,  such  as  they  are, 
Shirley  built  up  around  Lady  Lucina,  a  rich  young 

13  A.  C.  Swinburne,  "James  Shirley,"  in  The  Fortnightly  Review, 
liii  (n.s.,  xlvii),  470-471. 

14  The  general  subject  of  the  value  of  Swinburne's  critical  essay 
upon  Shirley — his  frequent  superficiality  of  acquaintance  with  the  plays 
discussed,  his  tendency  to  substitute  adjectives  for  specific  facts,  and 
his  seeming  indifference  to  accuracy  in  matters  of  exact  scholarship — 
I  must  reserve  for  a  note  in  the  Bibliography. 

15  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III,  107. 

C233^ 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

widow,  and  her  many  suitors,  and  around  the  rivalry 
of  Lady  Rosamond  and  Lady  Honoria  for  the  atten- 
tions of  Lord  Rainbow.  Lady  Lucina  gives  audience 
in  turn  to  each  of  her  suitors,  Sir  Ambrose  Lamont, 
Sir  Marmaduke  Travers,  Bostock,  cousin  to  Lord 
Rainbow,  and  Colonel  Winfield.  Of  each  of  the  first 
three  she  makes  a  fool,  and  then  sends  him  to  procure 
a  marriage  license ;  the  fourth  she  jeers  directly.  He, 
however,  by  the  connivance  of  her  maid,  has  over- 
heard her  conference  with  the  others.  He  tells  them 
how  they  are  deceived,  and  agrees  with  them  on  ven- 
geance. When  they  return  to  her,  however,  Bostock, 
their  spokesman,  is  so  discourteous  to  Lucina  that 
Winfield  interferes  and  overwhelms  him  in  her  pres- 
ence. Winfield  remains  with  Lucina,  and  renews  his 
suit.  She  offers  to  marry  him  on  one  simple  condi- 
tion :  that  he  will  make  oath  to  her  that  he  has  been 
"honest,"  i.e.,  that  he  has  lived  a  moral  life.  He 
refuses.  She  says  that  his  refusal  to  perjure  himself 
for  a  fortune  proves  his  honesty  in  another  sense,  and 
she  will  marry  him.  First,  however,  she  must  intro- 
duce him  to  her  six  children,  to  whom  the  bulk  of  her 
estate  belongs.  Surprised  but  unshaken,  Winfield 
bids  her  bring  the  children  in.  She  confesses  that  she 
was  but  testing  his  devotion;  and  declares  that  noth- 
ing now  remains  but  to  prove  to  him  that  the  ball, 
which  he  had  thought  of  questionable  morality,  is 

E>34] 


THE  BALL 

really  innocent.  Together,  in  the  final  act,  they  view 
the  ball;  and  Winfield  is  convinced. 

The  second  action,  the  rivalry  of  Rosamond  and 
Honoria  for  the  attentions  of  Lord  Rainbow,  opens 
with  a  quarrel  between  the  ladies.  He  overhears 
them,  vows  that  he  loves  both  equally,  and  leaves  it 
for  them  to  decide  whose  servant  he  shall  be.  In  his 
absence,  they  are  visited  by  Sir  Ambrose  and  Sir 
Marmaduke.  Smarting  under  their  repulse  by  Lady 
Lucina,  Sir  Marmaduke  offers  his  love  to  Lady 
Rosamond;  Sir  Ambrose,  his  to  Honoria.  Each  re- 
plies by  telling  her  suitor  that  the  other  is  desperately 
in  love  with  him.  The  suitors  then  offer  themselves 
to  their  supposed  admirers,  only  to  be  told  that  they 
have  been  deceived;  that  the  statement  was  but  a  test 
of  their  devotion.  The  arrival  of  Monsieur  Le  Frisk 
for  the  inevitable  dancing-lesson  saves  the  situation. 
The  ladies  then  turn  their  attention  to  Lord  Rain- 
bow. At  the  ball,  they  tell  him  that,  unable  to  agree 
as  to  which  most  deserves  his  love,  they  have  decided 
to  ask  him  to  draw  lots.  He  declares  that  he  will 
draw  both  lots.  He  does  so,  and  finds  each  a  blank. 
Outwitted,  he  gracefully  admits  defeat;  and  begs  of 
each  lady  the  acceptance  of  a  jewel. 

As  these  outlines  indicate,  the  effectiveness  of  this 
comedy  consists  neither  in  the  strength  of  the  charac- 
ters nor  in  the  structure  of  the  plot,  but  rather  in  the 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

amusing  situations  and  in  the  opportunities  for  lively 
repartee.  All  these  Shirley  handles  well ;  and  to  them, 
he  adds  a  further  element,  a  group  of  comic  characters 
of  humor.  Monsieur  Le  Frisk,  the  French  dancing- 
master;  Barker,  who  rails  at  all  the  world;  Bostock, 
who  boasts  of  noble  blood,  but  who,  under  the  great- 
est provocation,  is  too  cowardly  to  draw  his  sword; 
and  Jack  Freshwater,  the  pretended  traveler,  who 
lends  his  money  on  condition  that  he  receive  five  for 
one  at  his  return,  and  whose  astonishing  ignorance 
proves  that  he  has  never  quitted  England:  all  these 
add  a  pleasant  seasoning  to  the  salad.  Were  Barker 
taster  to  his  Majesty,  he  perhaps  would  say  that  many 
of  the  ingredients  of  the  salad  were  a  trifle  stale;  that 
the  mistress  who  makes  a  sport  of  all  her  lovers  had 
done  duty  in  Hyde  Park  the  previous  April ;  that  the 
two  ladies  loving  the  same  man  had  appeared  in 
Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze  but  the  January  before; 
and  that  Jack  Freshwater,  who  did  most  politicly 
disburse  his  sums,  to  have  five  for  one  at  his  return 
from  Venice,16  is  in  this  but  an  echo  of  Jonson's  Pun- 
tarvolo,  who  put  forth  some  five  thousand  pound, 
to  be  paid  him  five  for  one  upon  the  return  of  himself 
and  his  dog  and  his  cat  from  the  Turk's  court  in  Con- 
stantinople.17   And  Barker  might  add,  if  he  were  but 

19  The  Ball,  ii,  i;  Works,  III,  21. 

17  Jonson:  Every  Man  out  of  his  Humour,  n,  i;  IV,  iv. 


summary:  first  period 

a  prophet,  that  the  scene  of  the  lovers  who  attempt  to 
revile  their  mistress  and  are  put  to  shame  by  another, 
is  but  a  preliminary  sketch  for  a  scene  in  Shirley's 
The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  1635.  If  his  Majesty  were 
wise,  however,  he  would  reply  to  Barker  that,  in  this 
comedy,  Shirley  has  at  least  served  up  several  toler- 
ably entertaining  humors,  a  goodly  number  of  amus- 
ing episodes,  plenty  of  sprightly  conversation,  several 
dances,  and  a  masque.  His  Majesty  might  add  that, 
for  the  audience  of  November,  1632,  Shirley's  local 
and  personal  allusions  were  vastly  entertaining. 

SUMMARY 

BEFORE  we  proceed  to  our  study  of  Shirley's  second 
period,  let  us  glance  back  for  a  moment  over  the 
eleven  plays  extant  from  the  less  than  eight  years 
between  February  10,  1624/5,  and  November  16, 
1632.  Love  Tricks,  or  the  School  of  Complement, 
The  Maid's  Revenge,  The  Wedding,  The  Witty  Fair 
One,  The  Grateful  Servant,  The  Traitor,  The  Hu- 
morous Courtier,  Love's  Cruelty,  Changes,  or  Love 
in  a  Maze,  Hyde  Park,  The  Ball:  these  eleven  plays 
afford  as  much  variety  as  do  those  of  either  of  Shir- 
ley's later  periods,  and,  occasionally,  as  high  effec- 
tiveness. For  plot-construction,  we  find  grounds  for 
commendation  in  The  Witty  Fair  One,  in  The  Grate- 
ful Servant,  in  Love's  Cruelty,  and  in  Hyde  Park; 

C237] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

for  character-delineation,  in  Sir  Nicholas  and  Brains, 
in  Foscari,  Cleona,  Leonora,  and  Jacomo,  in  Bella- 
mente,  Clariana,  Hippolito,  and  Eubella,  in  Fair- 
field and  his  Mistress  Carol.  Above  all,  both  for 
character  and  for  plot,  we  find  artistic  satisfaction  in 
The  Traitor  and  in  its  Lorenzo,  Sciarrha,  and 
Amidea. 

But  during  these  eight  years,  in  what  fields  has 
Shirley  done  his  work?  Of  the  five  plays  that  we 
have  just  recalled,  two  are  romantic,  three  are  real- 
istic; but  of  the  eleven  plays  surviving  from  Shirley's 
first  dramatic  period,  only  three  are  primarily  ro- 
mantic. One,  the  earliest,  is  a  mingling  of  the  types; 
and  the  remaining  seven  are  plays  of  London  life  and 
manners.  In  short,  although  Shirley's  ablest  drama 
of  the  period — The  Traitor — is  a  romantic  tragedy, 
the  larger  number  of  his  plays  are  realistic  studies  in 
the  style  of  Jonson  and  of  Fletcher. 


038  3 


THE  SECOND 
DRAMATIC  PERIOD 


CHRONOLOGY  OF  PLAYS 
SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

1632-1636 

1632,  November  19.    The  Arcadia  probably  acted. 
1632/3,  January  21.     The  Bewties  licensed.     Subse- 
quently published  as  The  Bird  in  a  Cage. 

1633,  July  3.    The  Young  Admiral  licensed. 

1633,  November  1 1.    The  Gamester  licensed. 

1634,  June  24.    The  Example  licensed. 

1634,  November  29.    The  Opportunity  licensed. 
1634/5,  February  6.    The  Coronation  licensed. 

1635,  October  15.    The  Lady  of  Pleasure  licensed. 
1635/6,  January  18.    The  Duke's  Mistress  licensed. 


i:240] 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-BEGUN 

FROM  THE  ARCADIA  TO  THE  YOUNG  ADMIRAL 

FROM  Love  Tricks,  or  The  School  of  Com- 
plement, licensed  February  10,  1624/5,  to 
The  Ball,  licensed  November  16,  1632,  the 
plays  of  Shirley  had  been  dominated  by  the  style  of 
"our  acknowledged  master,  learned  Jonson."  Indeed, 
of  the  eleven  extant  plays  belonging  to  this  his  first 
dramatic  period,  only  three—  The  Maid's  Revenge, 
The  Grateful  Servant,  and  The  Traitor — are  roman- 
tic. The  other  eight,  with  the  exception  of  that  herm- 
aphrodite, Love  Tricks,  are  realistic.  Beginning, 
however,  with  The  Arcadia,  Shirley  entered  upon  a 
period  in  which,  without  wholly  abandoning  the 
realistic  style,  he  devoted  himself  primarily  to  ro- 
mantic plays.  Of  the  nine  original  plays,1  belonging 
to  this  his  second  dramatic  period,  only  three—  The 
Gamester,  The  Example,  and  The  Lady  of  Pleasure 
—  are  comedies  of  London  life  and  manners;  the 

1  I  am  ignoring,  in  this  estimate,  The  Night  Walker  ("a  play  of 
Fletcher's  corrected  by  Shirley"),  The  Triumph  of  Peace  (a  masque), 
and  Chabot,  Admiral  of  France  (by  Chapman  and  Shirley). 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

other  six — The  Arcadia,  The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  The 
Young  Admiral,  The  Opportunity,  The  Coronation, 
and  The  Duke's  Mistress— are  romantic.  From  a 
period  in  which  only  one  third  of  his  work  was  ro- 
mantic, Shirley  passed  to  a  period  in  which  only  one 
third  was  not  romantic.  This  comparison  between 
his  first  and  second  periods  becomes  doubly  signifi- 
cant when  we  observe  that,  out  of  a  total  of  eleven 
extant  dramas  belonging  to  his  third  and  last  dra- 
matic period,  Shirley  produced  but  two  non-romantic 
plays.2 

From  The  Ball,  licensed  on  the  sixteenth  of  No- 
vember, 1632,  to  The  Arcadia,  acted  on  the  nine- 
teenth of  the  same  month,  the  change  is  almost  start- 
ling. Not  only  had  Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze, 
Hyde  Park,  and  The  Ball  been  comedies  of  manners; 
but  to  their  realism  they  had  added,  in  each  instance, 
a  group  of  Jonsonian  characters  of  humor.  The  Ar- 
cadia, on  the  other  hand,  is  Fletcherian  romance  in 
treatment  and  in  material;  not  romantic  comedy,  but 
dramatic  romance  of  the  type  of  Philaster  and  of 
Cymheline.  Nothing  could  be  farther  from  the  Jon- 
sonian comedy  of  humors.  In  short,  we  may  take 
The  Arcadia  as  a  turning-point  in  the  career  of 
Shirley. 

2  The  Politique  Father,  i.e.,   The  Brothers  of   1652,  and   The  Con- 
stant Maid. 


THE  ARCADIA 

The  Arcadia  of  Shirley  is  a  dramatic  version  of 
The  Arcadia  of  Sidney.  To  avoid  fulfilment  of  an 
oracle,  Basilius,  King  of  Arcadia,  Gynecia,  his  queen, 
and  his  daughters,  Pamela  and  Philoclea,  withdraw 
to  a  lodge  in  the  forest.  Hither  follow  them  two 
princely  suitors:  Pyrocles,  son  of  the  King  of  Mace- 
don,  in  love  with  Philoclea,  disguised  as  an  amazon, 
Zelmane ;  and  his  cousin,  Musidorus,  Prince  of  Thes- 
saly,  in  love  with  Pamela,  disguised  as  a  shepherd, 
Dorus.  King  Basilius  falls  in  love  with  the  supposed 
amazon  Zelmane;  his  queen,  penetrating  the  disguise, 
becomes  infatuated  with  the  Prince  of  Macedon.  To 
escape  from  the  importunities  of  their  lust,  the  prince 
appoints  with  the  king  and  with  the  queen  a  meeting 
at  a  cave;  and  while  they  seek  him  there,  he  renews 
his  vows  to  their  daughter  Philoclea.  His  cousin 
Musidorus,  meanwhile,  is  endeavoring  to  elope  with 
their  other  daughter,  Pamela.  When  the  king  and 
queen,  having  met  each  other  at  the  cave,  have  made 
their  peace,  the  king  drinks  a  wine  that  the  queen,  in 
the  belief  that  it  would  insure  permanence  in  love, 
had  brought  for  Pyrocles.  He  finds  it  to  be  poison, 
and  falls  dead.  As  guilty  of  his  death,  the  officers 
of  state  arrest  the  queen,  Prince  Pyrocles,  Philoclea, 
and  the  eloping  Musidorus  and  Pamela.  Euarchus, 
King  of  Macedon,  sits  as  judge,  and  sentences  to  vari- 
ous deaths  the  queen  and  princes.  Too  late  he  dis- 
till 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

covers  the  latter  to  be  his  son  and  nephew:  the  decree 
must  stand.  As  they  are  passing  to  their  execution, 
the  murdered  Basilius  stirs  upon  his  bier  and  comes 
to  life.    The  oracle  has  been  fulfilled. 

When  Williams  and  Egglesfeild  published  The 
Arcadia  in  1640,  they  called  it  "a  pastorall."  Whether 
Shirley  himself  called  it  a  pastoral,  we  do  not  know; 
but  the  modern  student  of  the  drama  must  call  it  not 
primarily  a  pastoral  but  a  typical  "romance."  The 
story  of  an  oracle  and  its  fulfilment ;  a  prince  disguised 
as  an  amazon ;  another  as  a  shepherd ;  the  pure  love  of 
the  princes  for  the  princesses;  the  lustful  love  of  the 
king  for  the  supposed  amazon,  and  of  the  queen  for  the 
disguised  prince;  the  masque  of  the  shepherds;  the 
comic  business  of  Dametas,  Miso,  Mopsa;  the  elope- 
ment of  a  prince  and  princess ;  the  rebellion ;  the  love- 
potion  that  appears  a  poison;  the  seeming  death  of 
the  king;  the  tragic  fate  that  threatens  all  the  leading 
characters ;  the  discovery  that  the  judge  has  sentenced 
his  own  son  and  nephew;  his  unexpected  confirma- 
tion of  the  sentence;  the  amazing  recovery  of  the 
king  thought  dead;  and  his  recognition  of  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  oracle:  all  these  varied  and  surprising 
incidents  are  the  typical  material  of  a  Fletcherian 
"romance,"  and  as  such  they  are  presented.  When 
Schelling  says  that  The  Arcadia  is  conspicuous 
among  Shirley's  dramas  only  "for  its  close  following 

C244] 


THE  BIRD   IN  A  CAGE 

of  his  chosen  material,"3  and  that  "it  is  memorable 
for  no  other  reason,"3  he  is  considering  the  play  as 
an  isolated  phenomenon,  not  as  a  step  in  Shirley's 
development  as  a  dramatist.  For  Shirley,  The  Ar- 
cadia marks  his  complete  acceptance  of  romanticism. 
The  second  in  this  group  of  three  romantic  plays 
is  The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  licensed  as  The  Bewties  Janu- 
ary 21,  1632/3.  To  previous  critics  this  play  has 
seemed  of  interest  chiefly  for  its  political  allusions 
and  especially  for  its  satirical  attack  on  William 
Prynne,  then  in  confinement.  To  us,  the  play  is  more 
of  interest  as  gay  romanticism  run  mad:  another  con- 
tribution to  the  school  of  Fletcher.  The  Duke  of 
Mantua,  wishing  to  marry  his  daughter  Eugenia  to 
the  heir  of  Florence,  banishes  her  noble  lover  Phi- 
lenzo  and  shuts  up  Eugenia  in  a  closely  guarded 
tower.  The  lover,  returning  in  disguise,  boasts  in  the 
duke's  court  that,  if  he  be  granted  money  enough,  he 
can  accomplish  any  task  assigned  him.  As  a  jest, 
and  to  test  the  fidelity  of  his  guards,  the  duke  grants 
him  unlimited  treasure  for  a  month,  commands  him 
to  gain  access  to  the  princess,  and  decrees  death  as 
the  penalty  for  his  failure.  Bribes  prove  of  no  avail ; 
and  the  lover,  despairing,  resolves  to  immortalize 
himself  by  releasing  all  poor  debtors  from  the  prison. 
One  of  these,  in  gratitude,  invents  a  device  to  help  the 

3  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  II,  315. 

C245] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

lover.  He  presents  to  the  duke  a  cage  full  of  rare 
birds;  and  the  duke,  as  he  anticipated,  sends  it  to  his 
daughter.  When  she  opens  the  cage,  her  lover  steps 
from  its  central  pillar.  Next  day  the  lover,  still  dis- 
guised, reports  to  the  duke  that  he  has  performed  the 
task  assigned  him;  that  he  has  gained  access  to  the 
princess.  Summoned  as  a  witness,  the  princess  con- 
firms his  assertion,  and  begs,  moreover,  that  she  may 
have  him  as  her  husband.  The  duke  is  furious  that 
she  should  love  a  stranger,  a  man  of  no  birth.  When 
the  lover,  however,  reveals  himself  as  the  banished 
Philenzo,  the  duke,  fearing  that  Florence  will  break 
off  the  marriage  treaty,  orders  him  to  instant  execu- 
tion. As  he  is  led  out,  there  comes  a  letter  from  the 
Duke  of  Florence.  Florence  has  heard  of  the  love  of 
the  princess  for  Philenzo ;  he  has  no  further  interest  in 
the  alliance;  he  recommends  that  Mantua  marry  the 
princess  to  Philenzo.  The  Duke  of  Mantua  resolves 
to  act  on  the  advice:  Eugenia  may  have  her  chosen 
lover.  His  leniency,  however,  comes  too  late:  Phi- 
lenzo has  taken  poison  on  the  way  to  execution;  he 
is  brought  in  — dead.  When  the  dead  Philenzo,  how- 
ever, hears  that  he  should  have  had  the  princess  as 
his  bride,  he  comes  to  life,  and  they  live  happily  ever 
after.  In  short,  The  Bird  in  a  Cage  is  Fletcherian 
dramatic  romance  turned  into  extravaganza. 

Except   to    indicate    Shirley's   change   of    interest 

[246] 


THE  YOUNG  ADMIRAL 

from  realistic  to  romantic  drama,  The  Arcadia  and 
The  Bird  in  a  Cage  are  of  but  secondary  importance. 
Even  in  the  romantic  field,  Shirley  had  done  better 
work  before,  in  The  Grateful  Servant  of  1629  and  in 
The  Traitor  of  1631.  In  The  Young  Admiral,  how- 
ever, licensed  July  3,  1633,  Shirley  once  more  pro- 
duced a  play  of  primary  importance,  a  tragicomedy 
that  ranks  among  the  most  successful  of  his  romantic 
dramas. 

The  Young  Admiral,  as  has  been  shown  by  Stiefel, 4 
borrows  the  complication  and  climax  of  its  major 
plot  from  that  of  Lope  de  Vega's  Don  Lope  de 
Cardona.  The  resolution  of  this  plot,  however,  with 
the  minor  actions  and  the  general  treatment  of 
the  material,  is  Shirley's  own.  Vittori,  admiral  of 
the  fleet  of  Naples,  on  returning  from  victory  against 
the  fleet  of  Sicily,  finds  that  the  son  of  the  King  of 
Naples,  Prince  Cesario— whose  misbehavior  while  a 
suitor  at  the  court  of  Sicily  has  brought  on  the  war- 
has  taken  advantage  of  Vittori's  absence  to  attempt 
the  honor  of  his  wife  Cassandra,  has  imprisoned  his 
father  on  a  false  charge  of  treason,  and  has  shut  the 
gates  of  Naples  against  his  returning  army.  The 
young  admiral,  appealing  to  the  aged  king,  secures 
the  release  of  his  father,  Alphonso,  upon  condition 

4  Stiefel    in    Archiv   fur    das    Studium    der    neueren    Sprachen    und 
Literaturen,  cxix,  309-350. 

C247] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

that  Vittori,  Alphonso,  and  Cassandra  go  into  banish- 
ment. Before  they  can  escape,  Alphonso  is  again 
imprisoned  by  the  prince;  and  Vittori  and  Cassandra, 
driven  back  by  storm  upon  the  coast  of  Naples,  are 
made  captive  by  the  King  of  Sicily,  who  has  just 
arrived  before  Naples  with  a  second  fleet.  To  Vit- 
tori, Sicily  gives  the  choice  of  commanding  the  army 
against  his  native  city  or  of  suffering  the  death  of  his 
Cassandra.  Love  and  loyalty  struggle  for  mastery; 
but  rather  than  let  Cassandra  die,  Vittori  resolves  to 
sacrifice  his  honor.  When  the  Prince  of  Naples  hears 
of  this,  however,  he  warns  Vittori  that  Vittori's  first 
attack  upon  the  city  shall  be  the  signal  for  Alphonso's 
execution.  While  the  young  admiral  is  facing  this 
awful  alternative— the  death  of  wife  or  father — he 
enters  the  tent  of  Rosinda,  the  Sicilian  princess,  and 
there  discovers  his  wife  Cassandra  with  the  Prince 
of  Naples.  The  prince,  made  prisoner,  tauntingly 
shows  Vittori  the  letter  of  Cassandra  that  had  lured 
him  thither.  Vittori  is  convinced.  Heart-broken, 
he  begs  the  king  that  he  fulfil  his  threat  to  decapitate 
Cassandra;  then,  seeking  the  princess,  Vittori  begs 
that  she  secure  from  her  father  an  order  for  his  own 
execution.  Rosinda,  however,  solicits  his  service  in  a 
dangerous  enterprise.  Consenting,  he,  at  her  request, 
escorts  the  princess  from  the  camp  of  Sicily  to  the 
palace  of  the  King  of  Naples.    There  she  avows  her 

[-248] 


THE  YOUNG  ADMIRAL 

identity,  declares  her  love  for  the  captured  prince 
Cesario,  and  offers  herself  as  hostage  for  his  safety. 
Vittori  now  realizes  that  Cassandra's  letter  was  but 
an  artifice  to  lure  Cesario  to  the  princess.  Joyously 
he  throws  off  his  disguise,  and  seeks  and  obtains  the 
pardon  of  the  King  of  Naples.  In  the  Sicilian  camp, 
meanwhile,  the  king  discovers  the  disappearance  of 
his  daughter.  Wild  with  alarm,  he  commands  the 
beheading  of  Cassandra  and  the  prince,  but  is 
checked  with  a  warning  that  Naples  holds  the  prin- 
cess as  a  hostage.  A  conference  between  the  kings 
results  in  a  renewal  of  the  treaty  for  the  marriage  of 
the  prince  and  princess.  Vittori,  meanwhile,  loses 
no  time  in  reclaiming  his  beloved  Cassandra. 

As  the  foregoing  summary  makes  evident,  the  plot 
of  The  Young  Admiral  consists  not  of  a  struggle  be- 
tween contending  passions  within  the  hero's  mind, 
but  merely  of  a  struggle  between  the  hero  and  various 
external  forces.  Such  is  Shirley's  management,  how- 
ever, that,  scene  by  scene,  this  mere  external  struggle 
finds  expression  in  a  struggle  that  is  internal:  the 
struggle  between  love  of  wife  and  love  of  country; 
the  struggle  between  love  of  wife  and  love  of  father; 
and,  in  the  mind  of  the  father,  the  struggle  between 
love  of  king  and  love  of  son.  These  several  internal 
conflicts,  as  a  comparison  will  show,  are  original  with 
Shirley,  not  borrowed  from  his  Spanish  source,  Don 

C249] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Lope  de  Cardona.  They  are,  moreover,  additions  of 
great  value.  Shirley,  like  his  predecessors  in  dra- 
matic romance,  sought,  above  all  else,  for  the  emo- 
tional effectiveness  of  individual  scenes.  For  such 
effectiveness,  nothing  could  contribute  more  than  this 
element  of  internal  struggle. 

In  his  characterization,  also,  Shirley  has  done  well. 
He  has  made  Cesario  a  princely  and  efficient  villain, 
whom  we  admire  even  in  his  villainy;  he  has  made 
Rosinda  every  inch  a  princess;  Cassandra,  a  devoted 
wife  and  loyal  friend;  Vittori,  a  much  tried  and  tol- 
erably heroic  hero.  To  realize  fully  the  success  of 
Shirley's  characterization,  we  have  only  to  compare 
these  four  well-rounded  figures  with  the  wooden 
puppets  that  play  the  corresponding  parts  in  Don 
Lope  de  Cardona. 

As  for  the  minor  actions,  neither  Shirley's  comic 
characters  nor  his  comic  scenes  lack  originality  and 
effectiveness.  Didimo,  the  mischievous  page;  Pazzo- 
rello,  the  foolish  steward  who  desires  to  be  made,  by 
witchcraft,  bullet-proof;  and  Fabio,  the  courtier 
who  speaks  much  but  never  to  the  point,  and  whose 
unfortunate  bargain  with  Captain  Mauritio  lends 
savor  to  the  final  scene:  all  these  are  matter  foreign 
to  Shirley's  Spanish  source,  and  matter  genuinely 
delightful. 

In  versification,   also,   Shirley's   The   Young  Ad- 


THE  YOUXG  ADMIRAL 

miral  is  not  without  success.  In  the  lesser  plays  of 
Shirley,  the  verse  is  often  commonplace;  but  in  his 
major  plays,  especially  in  passages  of  deep  feeling, 
it  is  not  unworthy.  Such  a  passage  is  the  latter  part  of 
Act  III,  scene  i,  of  The  Young  Admiral,  from  which 
I  venture  to  quote  a  single  speech : 

VlTTORl  [to  Cassandra].  Do  not  say  so! 

Princes  will  court  thee  then,  and  at  thy  feet 
Humble  their  crowns,  and  purchase  smiles  with  provinces. 
When  I  am  dead,  the  world  shall  doat  on  thee, 
And  pay  thy  beauty  tribute.    I  am  thy 
Affliction;  and  when  thou  art  discharg'd 
From  loving  me,  thy  eyes  shall  be  at  peace. 
A  sun  more  glorious  shall  draw  up  thy  tears, 
Which,  gracing  heaven  in  some  new  form,  shall  make 
The  constellations  blush,  and  envy  'em. 
Or,  if  thy  love 

Of  me  be  so  great  that,  when  I  am  sacrificed, 
Thou  wilt  think  of  me,  let  this  comfort  thee : 
I  die  my  country's  martyr,  and  ascend 
Rich  in  my  scarlet  robe  of  blood;  my  name 
Shall  stain  no  chronicle,  and  my  tomb  be  blest 
With  such  a  garland  time  shall  never  wither; 
Thou,  with  a  troop  of  wives  as  chaste  as  thee, 
Shalt  visit  my  cold  sepulchre,  and  glory 
To  say,  This  doth  enclose  Vittori's  dust 
That  died  true  to  his  honour  and  his  country. 
Methinks  I  am  taking  of  my  leave  already, 

C250 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

And,  kissing  the  wet  sorrows  from  thy  cheek, 
Bid  thee  rejoice  Vittori  is  a  conqueror, 
And  death  his  way  to  triumph.5 

The  high  seriousness  and  poetic  beauty  of  these 
lines  suggest  more  adequately  than  could  any  criti- 
cism the  character  of  this  tragicomedy,  The  Young 
Admiral,  and,  with  some  qualification,  the  character 
of  all  the  romantic  plays  of  Shirley:  a  wistful  con- 
sciousness of  the  pathos  and,  at  times,  of  the  tragedy 
of  life;  a  yearning  for  conditions  more  happy  and 
more  noble  than  the  world  he  knew.  In  the  extrava- 
ganza The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  in  the  Fletcherian  ro- 
mance The  Arcadia,  and  in  the  tragicomedy  The 
Young  Admiral,  Shirley  presents  various  species  of 
this  romantic  genus:  species  that  range  in  tone  al- 
most from  tragedy  to  farce.  Yet  in  each,  whether 
seemingly  frivolous  or  serious,  he  gives  us  something 
more  than  the  cynical  satire  of  his  comedies  of  Lon- 
don life  and  manners:  he  gives  us,  in  the  place  of  wit, 
a  heart. 

6  The  Young  Admiral,  ill,  i ;  Works,  III,  134-135. 


[2523 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONTINUED 
THE  GAMESTER  AND  THE  EXAMPLE 

NOT  without  occasional  "backsliding"  did 
Shirley  abandon  the  realistic  school.  In 
the  very  year  of  the  licensing  of  The 
Young  Admiral,  and  again  in  the  following  spring, 
Shirley  was  guilty  of  a  fall  from  grace.  In  the  first 
of  these  instances,  however,  his  tempter  was  no  less  a 
person  than  the  king. 

In  two  respects,  moreover,  these  comedies  of  man- 
ners— The  Gamester  and  The  Example— differ 
from  Shirley's  previous  work  in  the  realistic  school. 
In  the  first  place,  the  incidents,  although  not  always 
more  decent,  are  at  least  more  moral.  In  the  Pe- 
nelope-Fowler scenes  of  The  Witty  Fair  One,  Shir- 
ley had  used  repulsive  situations  merely  for  comic 
effect;  in  The  Gamester,  and  even  more  emphatically 
in  The  Example,  he  places  the  emphasis  not  on  the 
evil  but  on  the  reformation.  Shirley  has  evidently 
come  to  feel  the  tragic  side  of  the  immorality  he  pic- 
tures, and  no  longer  accounts  it  a  subject  for  heartless 

C253] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

jesting  or  for  indifference.  In  the  second  place,  both 
in  The  Gamester  and  in  The  Example,  amid  the  real- 
ism and  amid  the  characters  of  humor,  Shirley  has 
introduced  an  element  of  romance.  In  The  Game- 
ster, the  Beaumont-Delamore  action  is  romantic  com- 
edy—well-nigh romantic  tragedy— though  the  scene 
be  London;  in  The  Example,  the  extravagant 
"honor"  of  Sir  Walter  Peregrine  and  of  Lord  Fitz- 
avarice  in  the  major  plot  gives  a  romantic  tone  to  the 
entire  play,  and  makes  it— if  such  a  thing  be  possible 

—  a  romantic  comedy  of  manners. 

The  earlier  of  these  two  comedies,  The  Gamester, 
was  licensed  November  n,  1633.    From  a  dramatic 

—  as  distinct  from  an  ethical — point  of  view,  its  plot 
is  well  worthy  of  its  royal  source.  Wilding,  neglect- 
ful of  his  loving  wife,  makes  dishonorable  suit  to 
Penelope,  her  ward,  and  even  commands  his  wife  to 
solicit  Penelope  in  his  behalf.  The  wife,  for  pur- 
poses of  her  own,  prevails  on  Penelope  to  promise 
him  a  meeting.  When,  however,  the  appointed  hour 
arrives,  Wilding,  unwilling  to  leave  the  gaming-table, 
sends  his  friend  Hazard  to  keep  the  appointment 
with  Penelope.  In  the  morning,  smarting  from  his 
loss  at  cards,  Wilding  hears  from  Hazard  a  glowing 
account  of  his  meeting  with  the  ward.  Doubly  smart- 
ing, Wilding  presently  discovers  from  his  virtuous 
wife  that  it  was  she  and  not  Penelope  that  kept  the 

C*54] 


THE  GAMESTER 

assignation.  Wilding's  first  impulse  is  to  keep  both 
his  wife  and  his  friend  Hazard  in  ignorance  of  the 
truth.  To  this  end,  he  offers  to  double  Penelope's 
dowry  if  Hazard  will  marry  her.  As  the  two  are  in 
love  already,  they  hasten  to  the  priest.  Then,  at  the 
last,  the  repentant  Wilding  finds  that  his  fears  are 
groundless:  that  Hazard  had  found  both  women 
waiting  to  shame  the  erring  husband,  and  that  with 
them  Hazard  had  arranged  the  plot  that  brought 
Wilding  to  his  senses.  If  the  reader  can  adopt  the 
Gallic  attitude  which  makes  adultery  a  fit  subject  for 
a  jest  and  accounts  a  wronged  husband  the  height  of 
the  ridiculous,  then  this  main  plot  of  The  Gamester 
is  a  capital  theme  capitally  presented.  As  Schelling 
says:  "The  popularity  of  The  Gamester  ...  is 
based  not  solely  on  its  appeal  to  the  pruriency  of  its 
auditors,  but  likewise  on  the  admirable  knitting  of 
its  plot  and  the  success  with  which  the  dramatic 
suspense  is  sustained  to  the  very  end."  l 

The  two  other  actions  in  the  play,  however,  are 
probably  more  acceptable  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  mind. 

1  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  n,  293.  I  am  glad,  however,  that 
Professor  Schelling  adds:  "To  pick  and  choose  this  play  as  typical 
of  the  comedy  of  its  age,  and  of  Shirley  in  particular,  is  almost  as 
unfair  as  it  would  be  to  select  the  discourse  of  Mistress  Overdone 
and  her  tapster  Pompey  as  characteristic  of  Shakespeare's  dialogue  at 
large,  or  hold  up  the  device  by  which  Helena  wins  her  husband,  Ber- 
tram— a  device,  by  the  way,  not  altogether  dissimilar  to  that  em- 
ployed by  Mistress  Wilding  under  similar  conditions — as  typical  of 
the  master  dramatist's  prevalent  ethics  of  conduct." — Ibid.,  293-294. 

[255] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

The  first  of  these,  allied  to  the  main  plot  both  by  the 
presence  of  Wilding  and  by  the  active  participation 
of  Hazard,  is  especially  interesting  for  its  realistic 
pictures  of  gaming-houses,  gamblers,  and  men  about 
town.  Old  Barnacle,  a  wealthy  citizen,  desires  his 
heir  and  nephew  to  gain  a  reputation  among  the  gal- 
lants. To  this  end,  he  bribes  Hazard,  a  known  man 
of  valor,  to  allow  Young  Barnacle  to  strike  him  in  a 
gambling-house.  So  successful  is  the  plot  that  Young 
Barnacle  gains  a  mighty  reputation  as  a  bully,  and 
believes  himself  as  valiant  as  he  seems.  As  a  result, 
he  quarrels  upon  all  occasions,  until  Old  Barnacle, 
fearful  lest  his  hopeful  nephew  be  killed,  offers  to 
Hazard  another  hundred  pounds  to  humble  the 
young  gallant.  Hazard  willingly  administers  the 
required  thrashing,  and  then  reveals  the  jest. 

The  connection  between  this  second  plot  and  that 
first  given  seems  closer  in  the  play  than  in  this  ab- 
stract; but  the  connection  between  these  and  the  third 
plot  is  slight  even  in  the  play.  This  third  plot  deals 
with  the  romantic  loves  of  Beaumont  and  Violante, 
Delamore  and  Leonora.  On  the  charge  of  slaying 
Delamore  in  a  duel,  Beaumont  is  imprisoned  under 
sentence  of  death.  Sir  Richard  Hurry,  father  of 
Leonora,  commands  her  to  marry  Beaumont,  though 
the  latter  has  slain  her  betrothed  and  is  himself  be- 
trothed to  her  dearest  friend.     When  Sir  Richard 

i>56;i 


THE  GAMESTER 

promises  to  obtain  Beaumont's  pardon  on  condition 
that  he  marry  Leonora,  Beaumont  refuses  to  abandon 
Violante.  Urged  by  Violante  to  accept  Sir  Richard's 
offer  and  so  save  his  life,  Beaumont  declares  himself 
doubly  obliged  to  be  true  to  Violante.  At  a  final 
hearing,  Sir  Richard  again  offers  Leonora  and  her 
wealth  to  Beaumont.  He  refuses.  Sir  Richard  there- 
upon sentences  Beaumont— to  marry  Violante.  Dela- 
more,  he  assures  them,  is  alive  and  out  of  danger, 
and  has  his  consent  to  marry  Leonora.  This  story, 
beginning  with  a  supposedly  fatal  duel  and  ending 
happily  in  a  court  of  justice,  is  somewhat  suggestive 
of  the  Beauford-Marwood  action  in  The  Wedding. 
Its  effect,  however,  depends  less  on  startling  situa- 
tions and  more  on  romantic  emotionality. 

Although  the  three  plots  are  not  vitally  related,  each 
by  itself  is  so  carefully  constructed  that,  in  surprise 
and  in  suspense,  it  is  genuinely  effective.  Of  the  char- 
acterization less  is  to  be  said;  yet  it  is  tolerably  suc- 
cessful. Hazard  and  Wilding  make  a  well-con- 
trasted pair:  the  latter  unable  to  resist  the  temptation 
of  the  moment,  whether  for  gaming  or  for  women; 
the  former  sane  and  self-controlled  even  in  his  vices, 
able  to  dissuade  his  companions  from  committing 
assault  upon  the  officers,  able  to  leave  the  gaming- 
table while  yet  a  winner,  able  to  discern  virtue  in 
womanhood  and  to  respect  it.    Young  Barnacle,  too, 

C257] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

makes  a  distinct  and  interesting  figure,  not  only  in 
his  swaggering  but  also  in  his  humor  of  speech— so 
exquisitely  caricatured  by  Wilding's  page.  The 
women  of  the  play  are,  to  the  modern  reader,  less 
attractive.  True  to  the  manners  of  their  time,  they 
lack  the  modern  sense  of  the  indelicate:  they  have  a 
looseness  of  phrase,  and  an  undue  tolerance  for  the 
viciousness  of  their  acquaintances.  In  themselves, 
however,  they  seem  not  immoral;  and  Shirley's  in- 
creased ability  to  characterize  has  made  them  real 
enough  somewhat  to  enlist  our  sympathy.  In  short, 
although  The  Gamester  is  by  no  means  great,  its 
popularity  is  not  ill  deserved.  In  view  of  Herbert's 
record  that  the  play  was  "made  by  Sherley  out  of  a 
plot  of  the  king's,"  we  need  not  wonder  at  the  further 
note :  "The  king  sayd  it  was  the  best  play  he  had  seen 
for  seven  years."2 

The  Example,  licensed  June  24,  1634,  is  to  modern 
taste  the  most  acceptable  of  Shirley's  comedies  of 
London  life  and  manners.  Its  two  minor  actions  are 
conspicuously  in  the  style  of  Jonson.  The  first  of 
these  concerns  the  humors  of  Vainman  and  Pumice- 
stone,  suitors  to  Jacinta,  who  requires  the  former 
never  to  speak  while  in  her  presence,  the  latter  always 
to  perform  the  opposite  of  what  she  bids."5  The  sec- 
ond concerns  the  humors  of  Sir  Solitary  Plot,  a  char- 

/iMalone's  Shakspere,  1821,  lit,  236. 
1  The  Example,  iv,  ii ;  Works,  III,  337_339- 

^58] 


THE   EXAMPLE 

acter  compounded  of  Jonson's  Morose  in  Epiccene, 
and  Jonson's  Sir  Politic  Would-be  in  Volpone.  Like 
the  latter,4  he  suspects  a  plot  in  every  circumstance; 
like  the  former,  he  shuts  himself  up  in  his  rooms,  and 
is  cured  of  his  humor  only  by  a  practical  joke.  His 
servants,  Oldrat  and  Dormant,  add  their  humors  to 
his  own;  and  when  Oldrat,  playing  constable,  at- 
tempts to  "reprehend"  the  traitors,  he  becomes  a  very 
Dogberry.5 

The  real  interest,  however,  centers  in  the  action 
involving  Sir  Walter  Peregrine,  Lady  Peregrine, 
and  Lord  Fitzavarice.  Sir  Walter,  because  of  heavy 
debts,  especially  to  Lord  Fitzavarice,  has  taken  ser- 
vice in  the  wars.  In  his  absence,  Lord  Fitzavarice 
endeavors  to  corrupt  Lady  Peregrine,  and  offers  even 
to  cancel  all  her  husband's  debts  as  a  reward  for  her 
infidelity.  Finally,  in  admiration  of  her  constancy, 
he  presents  her  with  the  mortgage  and  with  "a 
wealthy  carkanet."  At  that  moment,  Sir  Walter,  ven- 
turing arrest,  comes  home,  hears  from  his  wife  from 
whom  the  mortgage  and  the  jewels  come,  and  will 
listen  to  no  explanation.  Passionate  in  his  imagined 
wrong,  he  sends  a  challenge  to  Fitzavarice.  The 
latter  asks  his  follower,  Confident  Rapture,  to  be  his 
second.     The  follower,  to  avoid  fighting,  instigates 

4  Volpone,  II,  i. 

5  The  Example,  v,  i;  Works,  III,  354. 

C259] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Fitzavarice's  scrivener  to  arrest  Peregrine  for  debt. 
Naturally,  Sir  Walter  believes  that  the  arrest  was  at 
the  suit  of  Lord  Fitzavarice.  His  lordship,  however, 
is  indignant  at  the  trick.  He  pays  Sir  Walter's  debts, 
secures  his  freedom,  and  goes  in  person  to  see  him  at 
the  prison.  Overwhelmed  by  this  generosity,  Sir 
Walter  both  withdraws  his  suspicions  that  Fitz- 
avarice occasioned  the  arrest  and  accepts  his  assur- 
ance of  his  noble  purposes  toward  Lady  Peregrine. 
Lord  Fitzavarice,  however,  lest  it  be  said  that  he  has 
bought  Sir  Walter's  consent  to  Lady  Peregrine's  dis- 
honor, or  even  his  consent  to  drop  the  duel,  insists 
that  they  fight.  For  form's  sake,  then,  they  fight  the 
duel.  Both  draw  blood.  The  second  intervenes. 
And  the  play  ends— in  the  betrothal  of  Lord  Fitz- 
avarice to  a  sister  of  Lady  Peregrine,  Jacinta. 

Extravagant  as  all  this  sounds  in  abstract,  it  makes 
a  thoroughly  effective  play,  full  of  strong  scenes  and 
appealing  characters.  Indeed,  The  Example  has 
won  the  approbation  of  even  Swinburne,  who  not 
only  singles  it  out  as  "the  best  of  Shirley's  comedies," 
but  adds:  "To  have  written  such  a  tragedy  as  The 
Traitor,  such  a  comedy  as  The  Example,  should  be 
sufficient  to  secure  for  their  author  a  doubly  distin- 
guished place  among  the  poets  of  his  country."0    "A 

8  A.  C.  Swinburne,  "James  Shirley,"  in   The  Fortnightly  Review, 
liii  (n.s.,  xlvii),  472. 

C  *6o  ;| 


THE   EXAMPLE 

judgment  unblinded  by  perversity,  prepossession,  or 
malevolence,"  continues  Swinburne,  "must  allow  that 
the  noble  tone  of  this  poem  is  at  least  as  typical  of  its 
author's  tone  of  mind  as  the  baser  tone  of  a  preceding 
play.  .  .  .  The  noble,  high-spirited,  simple-hearted, 
and  single-minded  heroine  would  suffice  to  sweeten 
and  redeem  an  otherwise  condemnable  or  question- 
able piece  of  work;  her  husband  is  a  figure  not  un- 
worthy to  be  set  beside  her;  and  the  passionate  young 
tempter,  whose  chivalrous  nature  is  so  gracefully  dis- 
played in  the  headstrong,  punctilious,  perverse,  and 
generous  course  of  conduct  which  follows  on  the  fact 
of  his  conversion,  would  be  as  thoroughly  successful 
and  complete  a  study  as  either,  if  it  were  not  for  the 
luckless  touch  of  incongruous  melodrama  which 
throws  the  lady  of  his  love  into  a  swoon  at  the  sight 
of  his  preposterous  poniard  and  the  sound  of  his 
theatrical  threats.  But  all  that  can  be  done  to  redeem 
this  conventional  and  sensational  error  is  admirably 
well  done  in  the  sequel  of  this  noble  and  high-toned 
play:  a  model  of  simple  construction  and  harmonious 
evolution,  in  which  the  broad  comedy  of  the  under- 
plot is  rather  a  relief  than  an  encumbrance  to  the 
progress  of  the  more  serious  action." 

Whether  one  agree  with  Swinburne's  opinion  in 
its  entirety,  and  especially  with  his  assertion  that  The 
Example  is  "the  best  of  Shirley's  comedies,"  will  be 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

in  part  a  matter  of  personal  taste.  Others  would  pre- 
fer, perhaps,  to  select  for  that  honor  one  of  the  ro- 
mantic comedies.  It  is  significant,  however,  that 
much  of  the  excellence  of  this  realistic  comedy  results 
from  qualities  that  are  found  more  frequently  in 
romantic  drama.  Indeed,  although  the  scene  of  this 
play  is  laid  in  London,  and  although  its  minor  ac- 
tions concern  Jonsonian  characters  of  humor,  its 
major  plot  is  marked  by  such  high  seriousness  and  its 
major  persons  are  dominated  by  such  lofty  motives 
that  one  is  tempted  to  classify  The  Example  not  as 
comedy  of  manners  but  as  romantic  comedy. 

Even  in  comedy  of  manners,  Shirley  here  shows 
the  influence  of  the  romantic  drama. 


[262] 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONTINUED 
THE  OPPORTUNITY  AND  THE  CORONATION 

IN  the  two  winters  remaining  before  Shirley  went 
to  Dublin,  he  produced  four  new  plays:  The 
Opportunity  and  The  Coronation  in  the  season 
of  1634-5;  anQl  The  Lady  of  Pleasure  andThe  Duke's 
Mistress  in  the  season  of  1635-6.1  The  first  two  con- 
stitute the  subject  of  the  present  chapter;  the  second 
two,  of  that  which  follows.  Of  these  four  plays,  one, 
The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  is  a  comedy  of  manners;  but 
the  others  are  contributions  to  the  romantic  school: 
a  romantic  comedy,  a  dramatic  romance,  and  a  ro- 
mantic tragicomedy  respectively. 

The  Opportunity,  licensed  November  29,  1634,  is 
a  capital  little  comedy,  fairly  bubbling  over  with 
clever  situations  and  charming  character.  Like  its 
source — El  Castigo  del  Penseque  by  Tirso  de  Mo- 
lina2— Shirley's  play  presents  the  maddening  per- 

1  I  omit  from  this  critical  discussion  Chabot,  Admiral  of  France, 
licensed  April  29,  1635,  because  of  the  doubt  whether  Shirley  was 
more  than  its  reviser.     See  Chapter  III,  above. 

2  See  A.  L.  Stiefel,  "Die  Nachahmung  spanischer  Komodien  in  Eng- 
land unter  den  ersten  Stuarts,"  in  Romanische  Forschungen,  v,  193- 
220. 

C*«3] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

plexities  of  a  young  adventurer  torn  between  his  love 
for  a  beauteous  gentlewoman  who  believes  herself  his 
sister,  and  his  coincident  opportunity  to  win  the  hand 
of  an  equally  beautiful  and  equally  infatuated 
duchess.  Unlike  its  Spanish  original,  however,  Shir- 
ley's play  does  not  end  in  the  marriage  of  the  hero 
to  the  maiden  who  had  imagined  herself  to  be  his 
sister,  but,  with  greater  poetic  justice,  in  his  loss  of 
both  the  duchess  and  her  gentlewoman. 

In  Shirley's  version,  Aurelio  Andreozzi,  a  young 
gentleman  of  Milan,  comes  with  his  friend  Pisauro 
to  Urbino.  Here  he  discovers  that  he  is  mistaken  for 
one  Borgia:  that  he  is  the  supposed  son  of  an  aged 
nobleman,  Mercutio;  the  supposed  brother  of  the 
charming  Cornelia;  and  the  supposed  murderer  of  a 
brother  of  Ursini,  favorite  of  the  duchess.  In  short, 
he  finds  himself  received  as  one  who  rashly  has  re- 
turned from  banishment,  and  who  is  liable  to  pay, 
as  the  price  of  his  temerity,  his  head. 

From  this  danger  he  is  freed  by  the  intercession 
of  Ursini.  Ursini  loves  Cornelia;  and  therefore,  to 
establish  himself  in  the  good  graces  of  Cornelia  and 
her  family,  he  forgives,  as  the  mischance  of  a  duel, 
the  killing  of  his  brother,  and  from  the  duchess  se- 
cures the  hero's  pardon.  This  pardon,  however, 
throws  Aurelio-Borgia  into  further  difficulties. 
He  is  urged   to  consent  to  Ursini's  marriage  with 


THE  OPPORTUNITY 

Cornelia.  As  Borgia,  he  cannot  well  refuse;  as 
Aurelio,  he  is  himself  in  love  with  fair  Cornelia. 
Cornelia,  he  discovers,  is  as  madly  infatuated  with 
him;  yet  she  is  horrified,  he  sees,  at  a  passion  which 
she  deems  unnatural.  The  duchess,  moreover,  begins 
to  shower  him  with  favor.  Her  infatuation  for  the 
supposed  Borgia  becomes  the  scandal  of  the  court. 
He  sees  before  him  the  possibility  of  a  ducal  coro- 
net; nor  is  he  indifferent  to  the  duchess's  personal 
charms.  He  finds  that  his  standing  with  the  duchess 
has  aroused  the  sexual  jealousy  of  Cornelia  and  the 
political  jealousy  of  Ursini.  To  cap  the  climax,  the 
ambassador  of  the  Duke  of  Ferrara— really  no  other 
than  the  duke  himself  disguised— breaks  off  his  nego- 
tiations for  a  marriage  between  duke  and  duchess, 
and  prepares  to  leave  the  court. 

That  night,  divided  between  his  growing  affection 
for  Cornelia  and  his  desire  to  take  advantage  of  the 
favor  of  the  duchess,  Aurelio-Borgia  stands  beneath 
the  palace  window.  Unknown  to  him,  behind  him 
stands  the  duke.  From  the  window,  Cornelia,  pre- 
tending to  be  the  duchess,  warns  him  not  to  presume 
upon  her  favor,  for  she  plans  to  marry  with  Ferrara. 
The  duke,  overhearing,  joyfully  departs.  At  this 
moment  the  duchess  takes  Cornelia's  place.  Surmis- 
ing what  has  passed,  she  pretends  to  be  Cornelia, 
and  begs  him  to  consent  to  her  marriage  with  Ursini. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Desperate  lest  he  lose  both  the  duchess  and  Cornelia, 
Aurelio  declares  that  he  is  not  her  brother  Borgia, 
and  in  his  own  person  avows  for  her  his  love.  The 
duchess,  fearing  now  lest  he  leave  the  country  in 
despair,  gives  him  some  slight  encouragement,  and 
leaves  him  still  wondering  whether,  after  all,  he 
would  rather  marry  Cornelia  or  the  duchess. 

Next  morning  the  duchess  renders  Aurelio  more 
perplexed  than  ever.  She  does  her  best  to  lead  him 
to  avow  his  love,  and  promises  to  see  him  married 
to  any  mistress  whom  he  may  desire,  "be  she  the 
proudest,  greatest  in  our  duchy,  without  all  limita- 
tions." As  Aurelio  is  on  the  point  of  taking  the 
duchess  at  her  word,  Cornelia  enters  to  announce  the 
Duke  of  Ferrara.  She  attempts  to  court  Aurelio,  but 
the  jealous  duchess  summons  her  away.  Aurelio 
glories;  the  duchess  loves  him;  Cornelia  loves  him — 
but  he  must  give  her  no  encouragement;  her  Grace 
is  much  the  better  woman!  Then,  within  a  moment, 
all  his  hopes  are  dashed.  The  duchess  reenters  with 
the  duke  and  train;  and  Ursini  tells  Aurelio  that 
Ferrara  has  claimed  the  duchess  by  a  promise  made 
"last  night,"  and  that  it  is  the  duchess's  pleasure  that 
the  marriage  of  Ursini  to  Cornelia  wait  on  hers. 

Not  yet,  however,  is  the  story  done.  The  duchess 
denies  all  knowledge  of  the  "promise."  Cornelia 
confesses  the  impersonation.     The  duke  withdraws, 

[>66] 


THE  OPPORTUNITY 

indignant.  Again  the  duchess  stirs  Aurelio  to  renew 
his  suit.  He  sees  the  opportunity,  but  hesitates.  At 
length  he  asks  her — if  she  loves  him!  She  lectures 
him  gloriously,  and  then— pardons  him!  And  then 
she  has- him  write  for  her  a  letter— a  letter  to  an  un- 
named suitor— a  letter  avowing  her  love  and  promis- 
ing a  midnight  meeting  in  her  garden  and  their  mar- 
riage in  the  morning!  This  she  signs,  and  commands 
Aurelio  to  deliver  it  "to  him  that  loves  her  best." 
This  letter  the  faint-hearted  Aurelio  delivers— to  the 
duke! 

The  duke  declares  this  joy  beyond  his  hope.  Au- 
relio, discovering  his  error,  tries  to  gain  access  to  the 
duchess's  garden.  He  arrives  too  late:  the  duke  is  in 
possession.  He  then  resolves  to  win  Cornelia.  She 
listens  to  him,  and,  in  his  presence,  accepts  Ursini's 
suit.  The  duke  and  duchess  publish  their  betrothal. 
Aurelio  leaves  Urbino. 

Whether  as  intrigue  or  romance,  The  Opportunity 
is  a  delightful  comedy.  Without  an  instant's  dull- 
ness, the  action  rushes  on.  It  has  a  zest,  a  joyous 
freshness  that  gives  life  even  to  time-worn  situations 
—yes,  even  to  mistaken  identity!  And  the  characters 
—  the  infatuated  duchess,  the  charming  Cornelia,  the 
testy  Mercutio,  the  bewildered  Aurelio— they,  too, 
are  a  joy.  Even  Shirley's  rascally  servant  and  mis- 
chievous page  in  the  underplot   (of  which  I  have 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

said  nothing)  contribute  to  the  general  delectability. 
Concerning  the  content  of  The  Opportunity,  we  have 
but  one  regret:  that  Shirley  failed  to  copy  from  the 
Spanish  the  scene  in  which  Aurelio  is  permitted  to 
help  the  duchess  don  her  glove.3 

As  to  the  relation  of  the  play  of  Shirley  to  its 
source,  I  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  from  the  con- 
cluding paragraphs  of  the  article  by  Stiefel:4 

"As  we  review  the  whole,  we  find  that  Shirley  has 
made  abundant  use  of  his  model.  To  it  he  is  indebted 
not  only  for  the  idea  of  the  play,  but  also  for  the  prin- 
cipal points  of  his  plot,  the  arrangement  of  the  ma- 
terials, the  best  and  most  effective  scenes.  But  the 
imitation  is  not  slavish.  Not  many  literally  trans- 
lated passages  are  found.  Even  where  he  has  faith- 
fully copied  a  scene,  he  has  preserved  his  own  indi- 
viduality in  the  expression  as  far  as  possible.  .  .  . 
The  scenes  invented  by  Shirley  are  numerous;  and, 
although  they  are  inferior  in  humorous  effect  to  those 
of  the  original,  nevertheless  they  are  still  strong 
enough  for  the  part.  At  the  head  we  place  the  Pim- 
ponio  scenes  (the  comic  underplot),  which  some- 
times develop  an  excellent  humor.  But  Shirley  does 
not  really  attain  to  the  geniality  of  the  Spaniard. 

3  The  availability  of  The  Opportunity  for  modern  presentation  is 
suggested  by  its  revival,  some  eight  years  ago,  at  the  University  of 
Illinois.    See  The  Nation,  June  14,  1906. 

4  Stiefel,  Romanische  Forschungen,  V,  218-219. 

[268] 


THE  OPPORTUNITY 

This  is  best  indicated  when  one  compares  the  imi- 
tated scenes  with  the  original.  How  clumsy  every- 
thing there  appears  beside  the  spirited,  charming 
Spaniard! 

"In  respect  to  character,  Shirley  goes  his  own  way; 
and  herein  he  surely  surpasses  his  original.  The  men 
especially  receive  a  pronounced  individuality.  Mas- 
terly is  the  character  of  Mercutio,  which  is  the  poet's 
own  creation.  'The  waspish  vanity  and  perverse 
exultation  of  the  old  man,'  according  to  Dyce's  opin- 
ion (ill,  411,  note),  'are,  in  truth,  very  skilfully  and 
humorously  portrayed.'  The  jealous  Ursini,  the 
cynical  Pisauro,  the  imperious  duke,  the  clown  Pim- 
ponio,  are  figures  that  stand  forth  more  sharply  than 
any  in  Castigo.  In  a  more  remarkable  manner,  the 
leading  characters,  especially  the  women,  lose  under 
Shirley's  hands.  There  is  wanting  in  the  latter,  that 
grace  and  roguishness,  that  intense  personal  charm 
which  make  us,  in  Tirso,  indulgent  toward  their 
weakness  and  folly.  Don  Rodrigo,  also,  has  suffered 
in  his  English  costume.  In  Tirso  he  appears  as  a 
noble,  knightly  figure.  It  is  not  his  exterior  alone 
that  prepossesses  the  countess  in  his  favor.  Brave 
in  battle,  he  has  defended  her  against  the  hostile 
attack  of  Casimiro.  The  love  of  the  condesa  is  also 
an  overflow  of  her  gratitude  and,  at  the  same  time, 
founded  upon  the  inner  worth  of  the  tested  man.    On 

t>69  n 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

the  other  hand,  what  does  Aurelio  do  in  Shirley  to 
deserve  the  passion  of  the  duchess?  Nothing;  abso- 
lutely nothing.  She  sees  him,  and  is  in  love  with 
him;  she  sees  him,  and  wishes  to  possess  him. 

"The  English  play,  through  the  greater  variety  of 
characters,  through  the  introduction  of  subordinate 
characters,  and  through  the  underplot,  is  richer  and 
more  exciting  in  treatment  than  is  the  Spanish;  but, 
in  exchange  for  this,  the  chief  action— the  relation 
between  princess  and  adventurer— has  lost  as  well  in 
breadth  as  in  depth.  The  idea  of  the  piece  remains 
the  same.  Both  poets  represent  in  a  delightful  man- 
ner how  close-lying  happiness  is  forfeited  by  too 
timorous  reflection;  both  learn  'occasio  aegre  offertur, 
facile  amittitur.'  .  .  .  Taking  everything  together, 
we  must  estimate  Shirley's  comedy  as  an  excellent 
imitation  enriched  with  many  original  features.  Still 
we  believe  that,  in  the  whole  work,  it  has  not 
equalled,  much  less,  then,  surpassed  its  model." 

Slighter  than  The  Opportunity,  yet,  in  its  own 
way,  charming,  is  The  Coronation,  a  Fletcherian 
dramatic  romance,  licensed  February  6,  1634/5.  The 
story  of  the  play  is  a  blending  of  two  actions :  first,  the 
attempt  of  Cassander,  the  Lord  Protector  of  Epire, 
to  control  the  crown;  second,  the  love-affair  of  Ar- 
cadius  and  Polidora.  The  interest  comes  from  the 
complications  that  result  from  a  succession  of  revela- 

[270] 


THE  CORONATION 

tions  concerning  the  purpose  of  the  young  queen, 
Sophia,  and  the  identity  of  her  rivals  for  the  throne. 
Cassander,  the  Lord  Protector,  plans  to  marry  his 
son,  Lisimachus,  to  the  youthful  queen.  To  this,  Sophia 
seemingly  consents;  but  asks  that,  as  a  preliminary  to 
the  marriage,  she  be  fully  invested  with  her  royal 
power.  Cassander,  confident  that  she  loves  his  son, 
agrees  to  the  coronation.  But  no  sooner  is  she  in 
control  than  she  avows  her  purpose  to  wed  not  Li- 
simachus but  a  young  noble  of  the  court,  Arcadius. 
This  avowal  confounds  not  only  the  purposes  of  Cas- 
sander but  also  the  intentions  of  Arcadius;  for  the 
latter  has  accounted  himself  deeply  in  love  with  Poli- 
dora,  with  whom  he  has  exchanged  vows  within  the 
hour.  Arcadius,  however,  is  too  weak  to  resist  the 
temptation  offered  by  the  queen;  forgetful  of  Poli- 
dora,  he  consents  without  a  protest.  Even  her  letter 
disturbs  him  but  a  moment.  When,  however,  he  is 
about  to  be  married  to  Sophia,  Macarius,  his  sup- 
posed uncle,5  intervenes.  Arcadius,  he  says,  is  Prince 
Demetrius,  Sophia's  younger  brother,  supposed  dead, 
whom  the  late  king  had  intrusted  in  infancy  to  Ma- 
carius, lest  Cassander,  the  lord  protector,  cut  him  off. 
To  the  truth  of  this,  the  late  king's  signature  and  the 
evidence  of  the  bishop  both  bear  witness.     Sophia 

5  Arcadius-Demetrius  is  not,  as  Dyce  says  in  the  Dramatis  Per- 
sona, ill,  460,  the  "supposed  son"  of  Macarius,  but  rather  the  sup- 
posed nephew.    Cf.  pp.  464,  465,  476,  478,  500,  501,  etc. 

[271] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

has  lost  both  her  expected  husband  and  her  crown; 
Arcadius-Demetrius  is  the  rightful  king.  With  that, 
the  new  king  remembers  his  first  love,  Polidora,  and 
goes  in  state  to  lead  her  to  his  throne.  She  will  have 
none  of  him — as  king.  Sophia,  likewise,  recalls  her 
former  love,  Lisimachus.  He  has  found,  he  says,  a 
new  mistress.  Sophia's  suspicions  turn  to  Polidora. 
Meanwhile,  Cassander,  the  baffled  lord  protector, 
seeks  for  an  engine  against  Demetrius.  He  finds  it  in 
the  imprisoned  Seleucus,  long  Demetrius's  rival.  He 
declares  that  Seleucus  is  Prince  Leonatus,  an  elder 
brother  of  Sophia  and  of  the  new-crowned  king, 
hidden,  like  the  latter,  while  a  babe.  Seleucus  be- 
lieves the  tale  a  lie,  but  resolves  to  profit  by  it.  By 
an  energetic  coup,  he  gains  the  crown — and  dismisses 
his  instigator.  When  Cassander  in  revenge  declares 
him  an  impostor,  Eubulus,  the  supposed  father  of 
Seleucus,  reveals  that  he  is  indeed  Leonatus  and  the 
rightful  king:  Cassander's  fabrication  was  uncon- 
scious truth.  So  the  play  ends:  Arcadius-Demetrius, 
repentant  and  no  longer  king,  regains  his  Polidora; 
Princess  Sophia  discovers  that  the  "new  mistress"  of 
Lisimachus  is— herself ;  Seleucus-Leonatus  reigns. 

As  compared  with  other  work  of  Shirley,  the  char- 
acterization in  this  play  is  second-rate:  no  character 
is  especially  appealing;  no  character  is  especially 
well   drawn.     The  individuals  are,   indeed,  clearly 

C272^ 


THE  CORONATION 

differentiated;  but  the  characterization  is  sketchy. 
Cassander,  throughout,  is  merely  the  ambitious,  un- 
scrupulous would-be  king-maker;  Lisimachus  is 
merely  his  modest  son,  "too  good  to  be  the  son  of  such 
a  father";6  Seleucus-Leonatus,  the  elder  prince,  is 
ever  proud  and  violent  and  scornful;  Arcadius- 
Demetrius,  his  younger  brother,  is  no  coward,  in- 
deed, but  is  fickle  of  love  and  weak  of  will ;  Polidora 
is  loving,  but  sentimentally  romantic;  Princess 
Sophia  is  "wise  above  her  years,"7  but,  to  the  reader, 
unattractive.  In  not  one  of  these  characters— not 
even  in  Arcadius  when  Sophia  tempts  him  from  his 
former  love8— is  there  a  hint  of  internal  struggle. 
No  one  of  the  characters  is  developed  sufficiently  to 
grip  our  interest.  In  short,  Shirley's  character- 
drawing  in  The  Coronation  is  the  typical  character- 
ization of  Fletcherian  dramatic  romance— sufficient 
only  for  the  moment,  effective  solely  for  the  scene  in 
which  it  falls. 

Like  other  Fletcherian  romance,  however,  The 
Coronation  does  not  lack  effective  situations.  The 
scene  in  which  Sophia  grants  Seleucus  the  privilege 
of  combat  with  Arcadius;9  that  in  which  Arcadius 

6  The  Coronation,  I,  i;  Works,  ill,  462. 

7  Ibid.,  11,  ii;  Works,  in,  482. 

8  Ibid.,  11,  iii;  Works,  ill,  488-489;  and  Ibid.,  in,  ii;  Works,  HI, 
495-501. 

9  The  Coronation,  I,  i. 

[273] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

and  Polidora  exchange  their  vows;10  that  in  which 
the  combat  is  interrupted,  and  the  queen  chooses  as  hus- 
band not  Lisimachus  but  Arcadius;11  that  in  which 
Seleucus  scoffs  at  Arcadius's  praises  of  the  queen,  and 
Arcadius  is  revealed  as  Prince  Demetrius;12  the 
scene  in  which  Polidora,  with  her  masque  of  For- 
tune, Love,  and  Honor,  rejects  the  wooing  of  the 
king;13  and,  finally,  that  scene  which  proves  Seleu- 
cus-Leonatus  to  be  the  rightful  heir:14  each  of  these 
scenes  is,  for  the  moment,  strikingly  effective.  Con- 
sidered as  a  whole,  however,  The  Coronation  is 
memorable  only  as  being  one  further  play  by  Shirley 
in  the  style  of  Fletcher.15 

Whether  or  not  we  count  the  romantic  tragedy 
Chabot,  Admiral  of  France,  among  the  plays  of  Shir- 
ley, we  see  that,  thus  far,  the  dramas  of  this  his  second 
period  are  overwhelmingly  romantic.  The  Arcadia 
we  found  to  be  a  dramatic  romance  of  the  type  of 
Philaster  and  of  Cymbeline;  The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  a 
dramatic  romance  turned  into  an  extravaganza.   The 

10  The  Coronation,  li,  i.        12  Ibid.,  ill,  ii.  14  Ibid.,  v,  iii. 

11  Ibid.,  II,  iii.  :3  Ibid.,  IV,  iii. 

15  Not  only  in  the  original  quarto,  but  also  in  the  folio  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher,  1679,  and  in  subsequent  editions  of  their  works,  this 
play,  The  Coronation,  is  ascribed,  as  the  reader  will  recall,  to  John 
Fletcher.  The  title-page  of  the  quarto  (I  quote  from  the  copy  in  the 
Hoe  Collection)  reads:  The  Coronation,  a  comedy.  .  .  .  Written 
by  John  Fletcher,  Gent.  London,  .  .  .  1640.  In  view  of  its  super- 
ficial resemblance  to  the  work  of  Fletcher,  this  attribution  of  the 
play  is  not  surprising.  The  proof  that  the  play  is  Shirley's,  I  have 
presented  in  a  former  chapter  (see  pp.  82-83). 

f:274^ 


THE  CORONATION 

Young  Admiral  we  found  to  be  a  romantic  tragi- 
comedy, effective  in  plot,  effective  in  internal  strug- 
gle scene  by  scene,  effective  in  its  characterization  of 
Cesario,  Rosinda,  Cassandra,  and  Vittori,  effective 
in  its  departures  from  its  Spanish  source.  The  Coro- 
nation we  found  to  be  a  Fletcherian  dramatic  ro- 
mance, sketchy  in  its  characterization — as  Fletch- 
erian dramatic  romance  ought  to  be— but  striking  in 
situation  and  surprising  in  the  successive  revelations 
of  its  plot.  The  Opportunity  we  found  to  be  a  spar- 
kling romantic  comedy,  delightful  both  for  its  situ- 
ations and  for  its  characters.  Against  these  five 
romantic  plays— at  least  two  of  which  are  among  the 
most  satisfying  of  the  plays  of  Shirley — we  have 
found  in  this  period  but  two  that  are  comedies  of 
manners;  and  these  two — The  Gamester  and  The 
Example — are,  with  one  exception,  the  last  important 
contributions  of  Shirley  to  the  realistic  school.  In 
the  chapter  that  follows,  we  shall  consider  in  detail 
two  plays,  one  a  romantic  tragicomedy,  the  other  a 
satiric  comedy  of  manners.  Each,  in  its  own  way, 
typifies  a  large  body  of  the  work  of  Shirley.  Of  the 
two,  perhaps  the  comedy  of  manners  is  the  greater. 
But  whichever  of  these  plays  we  may  prefer,  we  must 
remember  that  the  period  which  they  conclude  was, 
for  Shirley,  a  period  of  conversion  to  the  romantic 
school. 

075  U 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  SECOND  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONCLUDED 

THE  LADY  OF  PLEASURE  AND  THE  DUKE'S  MISTRESS 

FOR  the  winter  of  1635-36,  the  last  winter 
before  Shirley  went  to  Dublin,  the  plays  of 
our  dramatist  were  two  in  number:  The 
Lady  of  Pleasure,  licensed  October  15,  1635;  and 
The  Duke's  Mistress,  licensed  January  18,  1635/6. 
These  plays,  as  typical  of  Shirley's  work  at  the  close 
of  his  second  dramatic  period,  we  shall  consider 
somewhat  at  length. 

The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  the  last,  with  but  two  excep- 
tions,1 of  Shirley's  comedies  of  manners,  is  a  bitter 
but  clever  satire  upon  the  wilder  lords  and  ladies  of 
the  court;  their  extravagance,  their  gaming,  their 
drunkenness,  and  their  licentiousness.     Brilliant  as 

1  These  two  comedies  of  manners  are  The  Brothers  of  1652  and 
The  Constant  Maid  of  1640.  The  former  is  believed,  by  many  critics, 
to  be  identical  with  the  play  of  the  same  name  licensed  in  1626;  the 
latter,  although  usually  assigned  to  the  Dublin  period,  gives  internal 
evidence  of  being  among  the  earliest  of  Shirley's  plays.  I  shall  discuss 
them  both  as  productions  of  Shirley's  third  dramatic  period;  for  the 
evidence  for  placing  them  earlier  appears  to  me  inadequate.  Never- 
theless, for  a  study  of  Shirley's  comedy  of  manners  at  its  best,  we 
must  turn  rather  to  The  Example  and  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  in  his 
second  period. 

[276:] 


THE  LADY  OF  PLEASURE 

Restoration  comedy,  it  is  equally  unreadable;  and 
yet,  although  it  is  among  the  most  offensive  of  the 
plays  of  Shirley,  it  is,  at  the  same  time,  among  the 
most  severely  moral. 

The  plot  of  The  Lady  of  Pleasure  centers  about 
a  young  woman  of  fashion,  Aretina,  wife  of  Sir 
Thomas  Bornwell.  Him  she  has  persuaded  to  sell 
their  country  estates  and  to  move  to  town;  and  there 
she  wastes  her  husband's  substance  in  fast  society.  A 
direct  ancestress  of  Lady  Teazle,2  Aretina  quarrels 
with  her  husband  for  opposing  her  extravagance; 
scorns  the  well-meant  warning  of  a  kinsman  against 
the  wiles  of  a  procuress;  recalls  her  nephew  from  the 
university  to  train  him  in  fashionable  dissipation; 
and  herself  takes  the  initiative  in  a  particularly  un- 
worthy intrigue.  Her  husband,  in  an  effort  to  bring 
her  to  her  senses,  endeavors  to  frighten  her  by  his 
own  prodigality  and  to  arouse  her  jealousy  by  danc- 
ing attendance  upon  Celestina,  a  merry  widow  of  six- 
teen. These  excesses,  however,  Aretina  welcomes  as 
warrant  for  her  own  misdoings.  Nor  does  she  stop 
short  of  actual  adultery.  When,  however,  her  hus- 
band, returning  from  the  gaming-table,  announces 
gaily  that  their  fortune  will  last  them  but  a  month, 
his  levity  arouses  her  attention.  And  when  her  worth- 

2  Compare  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  I,  i,  with  The  School  for  Scandal, 
II,  i. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

less  gallant,  Master  Kickshaw,  who  knows  not  the 
identity  of  the  lady  of  the  darkened  chamber,  boasts 
to  Aretina  of  the  gold  his  mistress  gave  him  and  con- 
fesses that  he  believes  his  mistress  a  she-devil,3  then 
at  last  she  realizes  the  horror  of  her  situation  and 
prays  her  husband  for  forgiveness. 

The  other  figures  in  the  play  contribute  variously 
to  the  sorry  picture.  Celestina,  the  widow  of  sweet 
sixteen,  is  not,  indeed,  immoral ;  yet  in  wit  and  word 
she  is  unbridled  beyond  the  possibilities  of  expurga- 
tion. Lord  A,  the  nameless  libertine  mourning  his 
dead  mistress,  descends  from  his  noble  pedestal  to 
attempt  the  honor  of  Celestina.  Madam  Decoy,  the 
procuress,  plies  her  trade.  Master  Frederick,  the 
somber  university  student,  plays  the  drunkard  with 
repulsive  variations.  Sir  William  Scentlove,  Master 
Kickshaw,  and  Master  Littleworth,  like  the  "worm" 
of  Cleopatra,  do  their  kind.  In  fact,  the  only  char- 
acter that  emerges  from  the  play  with  honor  is  Hair- 
cut, the  barber.  He,  at  least,  receives  our  hearty 
sympathy  when,  in  revenge  for  a  trick  that  Scentlove 
plays  on  him,  he  forces  Sir  William  to  remove  his 
periwig  and  stand  bare  for  half  an  hour: 

Or  this,  or  fight  with  me. 

It  shall  be  no  exception  that  I  wait 

Upon  my  lord.     I  am  a  gentleman  ; 

3  Cf.  The  Grateful  Servant,  IV,  v;  Works,  II,  76  et  seq. 

[278] 


THE  LADY  OF  PLEASURE 

You  may  be  less,  and  be  a  knight.    The  office 
I  do  my  lord  is  honest,  sir.    How  many 
Such  you  have  been  guilty  of,  heaven  knows.4 

And  yet,  despite  repulsive  subject-matter,  we  can- 
not but  admit  that,  as  a  play,  The  Lady  of  Pleasure 
is  excellently  done.  The  several  threads  of  the  story 
are  closely  interwoven;  the  scenes  are  lively  and 
amusing;  the  moral  teaching  is  unmistakable.  The 
language,  too,  is  varied  and  appropriate.  Celestina's 
stinging  characterization  of  Kickshaw  and  Little- 
worth,  her  parody  of  Lord  A's  poetic  flights,  and  her 
eloquent  defense  of  womanly  honor  in  repulsing  his 
solicitations:  all,  in  their  several  ways,  are  notable. 
Especially  conspicuous  in  contrast  with  the  method 
in  Chabot,  is  the  skilful  manner  in  which,  in  The 
Lady  of  Pleasure,  Shirley  presents  his  character-de- 
scriptions. He  does  not,  indeed,  confine  himself  to 
the  modern  method  of  incidental  presentation.  He 
uses  passage  after  passage  of  direct  characterization. 
But  in  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  these  descriptions  arise 
as  if  of  necessity  from  the  circumstances.  Aretina 
quarrels  with  her  husband,  and  he  draws  her  picture. 
Celestina,  administering  a  tongue-lashing  to  the  im- 
pertinent gallants,  tells  them  what  they  are.  The 
steward,  forgetful  of  a  caller's  name,  describes  him 

4  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  v,  i;  Works,  iv,  97. 

[279  J 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

to  identify  him  to  his  mistress.    As  a  result,  the  play 
is  conspicuous  for  satiric  characterization. 

In  short,  as  Neilson  has  remarked,  The  Lady  of 
Pleasure  is  "a  good  example  of  Shirley's  comedy  of 
manners";  and  since,  as  he  continues,  "this  type  of 
Shirley's  comedies  is  important  in  measuring  the  ap- 
proach made  toward  the  Restoration  comedy  before 
the  Puritan  Revolution,"5  we,  as  students  of  Shirley, 
should  be  grateful  to  Neilson  for  including  The 
Lady  of  Pleasure  in  his  recent  collection,  The  Chief 
Elizabethan  Dramatists. 

The  Duke's  Mistress,  licensed  January  18,  1635/6, 
is  Shirley's  last  play  before  he  went  to  Ireland— his 
last  play  among  those  belonging  to  his  Second  Dra- 
matic Period.  It  is  not,  as  Dyce  declared,  a  tragedy,6 
but  a  tragicomedy  in  which  the  underplot  of  Horatio 
and  Fiametta  is  humor  run  mad,  and  the  serious  por- 
tion a  somber  romantic  tale  of  court  intrigue  ending 
in  no  deaths  save  those  of  the  major  and  the  minor 
villain.  Because  the  play  stands  thus  at  the  end  of 
Shirley's  second  period;  because  it  is  a  romantic 
tragicomedy;  because  in  this  period,  and  even  more 
in  the  period  to  follow,  romantic  plays  were  Shirley's 
favorite  form;  and  because  this  particular  play  is,  to 
an  unusual  degree,  typical  of  Shirley's  matter  and 

5  Neilson,  The  Chief  Elizabethan  Dramatists,  p.  860. 
0  Works,  I,  xxxv ;  and  IV,  190. 

1:280: 


THE  DUKE'S  MISTRESS 

manner  in  this  particular  field;  for  all  these  reasons, 
The  Duke's  Mistress  especially  merits  our  attention. 

The  action  of  the  play  may  be  resolved  into  three 
elements :  ( i )  the  attempt  of  Dionisio  Farnese,  Duke 
of  Parma,  to  cast  off  his  loyal  wife,  Euphemia,  and 
to  obtain  as  his  mistress  Ardelia,  the  betrothed  of  Ben- 
tivolio;  (2)  the  attempt  of  the  duke's  kinsman  and 
heir,  Leontio,7  to  obtain  the  love  of  the  duchess  and  to 
supplant  the  duke;  and  (3)  as  comic  underplot,  the 
wooing  of  Fiametta  by  Horatio,  whose  humor  it  is  to 
value  a  mistress  in  proportion  to  her  exceeding  ugli- 
ness. 

The  material  is  typical  of  Shirley's  romantic  tragi- 
comedies. The  play  opens  with  revels  in  honor  of 
Ardelia,  "the  duke's  mistress."  As  these  are  at  their 
height,  the  duchess  enters,  and  begs  the  duke,  since 
she  has  lost  his  love,  to  sentence  her  to  death.  Ar- 
delia, who  has  not  heard  the  plea,  innocently  begs  that 
it  be  granted:  "Do  not,  sir,  deny  your  duchess  her 
desires,  so  just  and  reasonable!"  Euphemia,  horri- 
fied, vows  to  be  revenged  on  duke  and  mistress.  In 
reply,  the  duke  commands  the  close  confinement  of 
the  duchess;  and,  that  he  may  have  grounds  for  fur- 
ther action,  he  appoints  as  jailer  his  kinsman  and 
next  heir,  Leontio,  whose  passion  for  the  duchess  he 
suspects. 

7  Also  spelled  "Leonato";  see  Gifford's  note  in  Works,  IV,  271. 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

To  this  distracted  court  has  returned  Bentivolio, 
formerly  the  betrothed  lover  of  Ardelia.  As  he  is 
reproaching  her  for  her  faithlessness,  the  duke  ap- 
pears. Ardelia  hides  her  lover,  and  then,  from  the 
duke,  forces  a  confession  (which  neither  Bentivolio 
nor  the  court  would  have  believed  from  any  other), 
that,  notwithstanding  all  the  duke's  solicitations, 
Ardelia  has  not  yielded  him  her  honor.  Convinced 
of  her  innocence,  Bentivolio  studies  to  protect 
her.  He  has  need;  for  already  he  has  revealed  his 
secret  to  Valeric  The  latter,  having  first  betrayed 
Bentivolio  and  Ardelia  to  the  duke,  demands  that 
Ardelia  buy  his  silence  with  her  shame.  Fearful  lest 
her  refusal  cost  Bentivolio's  life,  Ardelia,  to  gain 
time,  promises  Valerio  a  meeting. 

Meanwhile,  Leontio,  kinsman  of  the  duke,  has  so- 
licited without  success  the  virtuous  duchess.  Realiz- 
ing that  he  can  achieve  nothing  while  her  husband 
lives,  but  that,  were  he  duke,  he  might  accomplish 
all,  Leontio  bribes  Pallante,  a  disaffected  captain,  to 
assassinate  Farnese.  Valerio  overhears  his  secret, 
convinces  Leontio  of  his  loyalty,  and,  for  Leontio, 
prevails  upon  Bentivolio,  also,  to  slay  the  duke. 
Leontio,  as  heir,  will  pardon  him. 

That  night  Fiametta,  Ardelia's  ugly  waiting- 
woman,  insists  that  Ardelia  give  the  duke's  lust 
immediate    satisfaction.      While    she    is    protesting, 


THE  DUKE'S  "MISTRESS 

Valerio  arrives  to  claim  her.  He  gets  rid  of  Fia- 
metta  by  means  of  a  pretended  summons  from  Ho- 
ratio, and,  finding  Ardelia  obdurate,  attempts  to 
force  her.  With  that,  she  covers  him  with  a  pistol. 
Some  one  knocks.  Supposing  it  the  duke,  Valerio 
hides  behind  the  hangings.  Bentivolio  enters.  Be- 
lieving that  the  rat  in  the  arras  is  the  duke,  he  runs 
Valerio  through;  and  then,  still  ignorant  of  the 
truth,  attempts,  with  Ardelia,  to  leave  the  palace. 

Leontio,  kinsman  of  Farnese,  meanwhile  waits  for 
the  explanation  of  the  shouts  of  "Treason!"  Pallante 
comes,  and  reports  that  he  has  slain  the  duke.  In  the 
midst  of  his  account— which  lays  strange  stress  upon 
the  duke's  repentance— officers  enter  with  Bentivolio 
and  Ardelia  prisoners.  Bentivolio,  like  Pallante, 
asserts  that  he  has  slain  the  duke.  Leontio,  though 
puzzled  at  the  second  confession,  sees  in  it  an  oppor- 
tunity to  shift  the  blame  from  his  retainer,  and  forth- 
with orders  Bentivolio  and  Ardelia  both  to  prison. 
Believing  that  the  duke  is  dead,  Leontio  hastens  to 
force  the  duchess  to  his  will.  Entering  her  room,  he 
finds  with  her  the  duke— spared  by  Pallante— repent- 
ant and  reconciled.  For  the  moment,  however,  Leon- 
tio does  not  recognize  Farnese,  but  mistakes  the  duke 
for  one  of  his  own  servants.  He  tells  Euphemia  that 
the  duke's  death  leaves  her  free  to  love  him.  The 
duchess  will  have  none  of  him,  and  cries  out  "Trea- 

[283;] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

son!"  The  disguised  duke,  being  unarmed,  repeats 
the  cry.  Leontio  threatens  to  kill  him,  but  is  con- 
vinced that  the  second  cry  was  but  an  echo.  That  he 
may  force  the  duchess,  Leontio  hands  the  duke  his 
sword  to  keep  the  door.  The  duke  reveals  himself, 
and  attacks  Leontio.  The  latter  uses  the  duchess's 
body  as  a  shield;  but  the  duke's  shouts  bring  Pallante 
and  the  guard.  Leontio  falls  wounded;  admits  his 
treasons;  dies.  Word  comes  that  Valerio  has  been 
found  slain  in  Ardelia's  chamber.  All  is  explained; 
and  the  duke  and  duchess,  reunited,  joyfully  sanction 
the  marriage  of  Bentivolio  to  the  duke's  innocent  mis- 
tress, fair  Ardelia. 

That  The  Duke's  Mistress  is,  in  its  subject-matter, 
typical  of  the  tragicomedies  of  Shirley,  must  be  evi- 
dent from  the  foregoing  summary:  it  is  a  tale  of  lust 
and  intrigue  at  an  Italian  court,  a  tale  in  which  inno- 
cence is  ultimately  triumphant  and  in  which  villainy 
suffers  death  or  reformation.  In  the  management  of 
this  material,  likewise,  The  Duke's  Mistress  is  repre- 
sentative of  Shirley's  tragicomedies.  In  the  first 
place,  the  exposition  is  typical.  The  play  opens  with 
a  single  rapid  scene  that— interesting  in  itself— gives 
us  an  instant  grasp  of  the  situation.  Valerio  jests 
about  the  duke's  desertion  of  the  duchess  and  passion 
for  Ardelia,  and  twits  Leontio  about  his  despondency 
and  the  duke's  suspicions;  Leontio  addresses  the  neg- 

[284] 


THE  DUKE'S   MISTRESS 

lected  duchess,  is  overheard  by  Strozzi,  retains  Pal- 
lante,  and  pays  his  respects  to  the  now  doubly  suspi- 
cious duke;  Ardelia  enters  and  is  welcomed  by  the 
duke:  all  this  in  a  single  scene,  and  the  play  is  on. 

Besides  being  typical  for  its  skilful  exposition,  The 
Duke's  Mistress  is  typical  for  its  well-knit  plot.  The 
comic  subplot,  to  be  sure,  is  united  to  the  serious  ac- 
tion only  by  the  fact  that  its  dramatis  persona  play 
also  minor  positions  in  the  major  plot:  its  Faust, 
Horatio,  is  the  comrade  of  Bentivolio;  its  Margaret, 
Fiametta,  is  the  companion  of  Ardelia;  its  Mephis- 
topheles,  Valerio,  is  the  sub-villain  of  the  major  plot. 
The  two  plots,  however,  that  compose  the  major 
action— that  of  the  duke  against  Ardelia  and  that  of 
Leontio  against  the  duke— these  are  inseparably 
interwoven.  The  figure  of  Valerio,  moreover,  is 
omnipresent,  an  aid  to  unity;  for  in  all  three  actions 
he  plays  a  vital  part.  He  it  is  that  introduces  Hora- 
tio to  his  first  mistress,  the  ugly  Fiametta,  and  that 
then,  as  further  complication,  brings  in  her  rival,  the 
uglier  Scolopendra.  He  it  is  that  discovers  Leontio's 
purpose  to  supplant  the  duke,  pretends  to  join  him, 
and  prevails  on  Bentivolio  to  be  their  agent  in  the 
assassination  of  Farnese.  He  it  is  that  betrays  Benti- 
volio and  Ardelia  to  the  duke,  that  attempts  himself 
to  force  Ardelia's  honor,  and  that,  at  last,  mistaken 
for  the  duke,  falls  by  the  avenging  hand  of  Benti- 

[285] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

volio.  Thus,  by  his  mischievous  participation  in  each 
action,  Valerio  links  the  three  plots  into  one. 

In  choice  of  scenes,  likewise,  as  in  exposition  and 
in  unity  of  plot,  The  Duke's  Mistress  is  typical  of 
Shirley's  tragicomedy.  Both  in  the  scenes  that  it  in- 
cludes and  in  the  scenes  that  it  omits,  the  play  is  typi- 
cal. The  effective  scenes,  the  scenes  essential  to  the 
plot,  are  present:  the  clash  between  the  duke's  mis- 
tress and  the  duchess  in  the  presence  of  Bentivolio, 
Leontio,  and  the  duke;  the  meeting  of  Ardelia  and 
Bentivolio,  followed  by  the  confession  of  the  duke  in 
Bentivolio's  hearing;  the  meeting  between  Leontio 
and  the  duchess;  the  two  meetings  between  Valerio 
and  Ardelia,  and  the  slaying  of  Valerio  by  Benti- 
volio; and  the  final  scene  between  Leontio,  the  duch- 
ess, and  the  duke.  Yes,  the  scenes  a  faire  are  present 
— with  one  typical  exception:  where  is  the  scene  in 
which  Pallante  achieves  the  reformation  of  the  duke? 
To  secure  a  surprise— the  duke's  unexpected  escape 
and  reformation  — Shirley  has  sacrificed  an  unusual 
opportunity  for  a  scene  of  character-development. 

In  choice  of  subject-matter,  in  skill  of  exposition, 
in  effectiveness  of  scenes,  The  Duke's  Mistress  is  both 
typical  and  successful;  but  the  result  is  only  the  ro- 
mantic tragicomedy  of  Shirley,  not  the  psychological 
tragedy  of  Shakspere. 

C2863 


summary:  second  period 

SUMMARY 

THE  two  plays  considered  in  this  chapter—  The  Lady 
of  Pleasure  and  The  Duke's  Mistress,  typical  respec- 
tively of  the  realistic  and  the  romantic  plays  of  Shir- 
ley—summarize concretely  the  work  of  our  dramatist 
from  the  autumn  of  1632  to  the  spring  of  1636.  Of 
the  nine  extant  plays,  other  than  Chabot,8  belonging 
to  this  period,  three  we  have  found  to  be  comedies  of 
London  life  and  manners.  Of  these  three  plays,  The 
Gamester  is  to  be  remembered  for  its  highly  compli- 
cated and  effective  plot  and  for  its  realistic  pictures 
of  London  gaming-houses;  The  Example,  for  its 
striking  scenes  and  its  appealing  characters;  and  The 
Lady  of  Pleasure,  for  its  brilliant  pictures  of  vicious- 
ness  and  extravagance  in  high  life  and  for  its  skilful 
plotting  and  character-delineation.  Each  of  these 
plays  contains  Jonsonian  "characters  of  humor" — 
Oldrat,  Dormant,  Young  Barnacle,  the  minor  figures 
of  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  and,  best  of  all,  Sir  Solitary 
Plot;  each  play  is  likewise  Jonsonian  both  in  its  firm 
organization  and  in  its  unsparing  and  at  times  repul- 
sive realism.  Together,  however,  these  three  come- 
dies of  London  life  and  manners  rise  above  the  ear- 
lier work  of  Shirley  in  the  realistic  school,  both  in 
their  serious  attitude  toward  life  and  in  their  severe 
morality.    Each  play  offers,  either  in  its  major  or  in 

8  Chabot,  which  I  ignore  in  this  summary  because  of  the  probability 
that  it  is  not  wholly  Shirley's,  is  romantic  tragedy. 

l^T2 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

its  minor  plot,  some  person  or  some  group  of  persons 
striving  for  more  wholesome  things;  and  in  The 
Example,  this  striving  produces  characters  genuinely 
noble. 

The  six  remaining  plays  of  Shirley's  second  period 
are,  as  we  have  noted,  essays  in  the  romantic  style, 
plays  that  belong  primarily  to  the  school  of  Shak- 
spere  and  of  Fletcher.  The  Bird  in  a  Cage  is  mere 
romantic  nonsense  flavored  with  satire  upon  contem- 
porary politics;  The  Arcadia  and  The  Coronation 
are  typical  Fletcherian  dramatic  romance,  slight  of 
characterization,  improbable  of  plot,  but  full  of  un- 
expected turns,  and  pretty  sentiment,  and  poetic 
charm;  The  Opportunity,  a  better  play  than  either, 
gives  sufficient  attention  to  character  to  be  accounted 
a  romantic  comedy  rather  than  a  Fletcherian  dra- 
matic romance;  The  Young  Admiral  and  The 
Duke's  Mistress  are  romantic  tragicomedies.  Each 
of  these  six,  according  to  its  kind,  displays  an  excellent 
command  of  plot.  The  romantic  comedy  and  the  two 
romantic  tragicomedies  display,  in  addition,  excel- 
lent character-delineation. 

Although  the  best  of  these  romantic  plays—  The 
Young  Admiral  and  The  Opportunity — are  perhaps 
not  greater  than  the  best  of  the  realistic  plays—  The 
Example  and  The  Lady  of  Pleasure — we  cannot  help 
feeling  that  Shirley's  interest  and  Shirley's  ultimate 
success  lie  not  in  realism  but  in  romanticism. 

[2883 


THE  THIRD 
DRAMATIC  PERIOD 


CHRONOLOGY  OF  PLAYS 
THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD 

i 636-1 642 

1638,  April  23.    The  Royal  Master  licensed. 

1639,  October  30.  The  Gentleman  of  Venice  li- 
censed. 

I039  (?)•    The  Politician  probably  acted. 

1640,  April  28.  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland  entered  in  the 
Stationers'  Register. 

1640,  April  28.  The  Constant  Maid  entered  in  the 
Stationers'  Register. 

1640,  June  1.  Rosania  licensed.  Subsequently  pub- 
lished as  The  Doubtful  Heir. 

1640,  November  10.    The  Imposture  licensed. 

1641,  May  26.  The  Politique  Father  licensed.  Sub- 
sequently published  as  The  Brothers. 

1641,  November  25.    The  Cardinal  licensed. 

1642,  April  26.    The  Sisters  licensed. 

1642.  The  Court  Secret.  "Never  acted,  but  pre- 
pared for  the  scene  at  Black-Friers." 


[290] 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-BEGUN 

THE  ROYAL  MASTER 

SHIRLEY'S  third  (and  last)  dramatic  period 
extends  from  his  departure  for  Ireland  in 
1636  to  his  return  to  London  sometime  in  the 
spring  or  summer  of  1640,  and  thence  to  the  closing 
of  the  theaters  in  1642.  For  much  of  this  period,  the 
precise  chronology  of  Shirley's  plays  is  far  from  cer- 
tain: many  of  the  plays  were  first  produced  in  Dub- 
lin; and  of  the  date  of  these  presentations  we  have  no 
record.  My  discussion,  therefore,  must  follow  the 
order  in  which  the  plays  were  licensed  for  presenta- 
tion in  London,  or,  when  this  record  is  wanting,  the 
order  in  which  the  plays  were  entered  in  the  Station- 
ers' Register  for  publication.  To  this  arrangement, 
however,  I  shall  make  one  exception.  The  Politi- 
cian, never  licensed,  was  not  published  until  1655; 
yet,  since  it  was  "Presented  at  Salisbury  Court  By 
Her  Majesties  Servants,"1  it  must  antedate  Shirley's 
return  from  Dublin  in  1640,  the  time  when  Shirley 

1  From  the  title-page  of  a  copy  of  the  1655  edition,  in  the  possession 
of  the  present  writer. 

[290 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

severed  his  connection  with  the  Queen's  men.  Since 
The  Gentleman  of  Venice  was,  like  The  Politician, 
"Presented  at  the  Private  house  in  Salisbury  Court 
by  her  Majesties  Servants,"2  and  was  likewise  pub- 
lished in  1655,  I  shall  assume,  for  purposes  of  ar- 
rangement, that  the  two  plays  belong  to  approxi- 
mately the  same  time.  The  Gentleman  of  Venice 
was  licensed  for  London  presentation  October  30, 
1639.  I  shall  place  The  Politician  immediately  after 
it.  All  other  plays  of  the  period  I  shall  consider  in 
the  order  of  the  earliest  known  date  concerning  them. 
Taken  as  a  whole,  this  third  dramatic  period  is 
notable  in  two  respects.  In  the  first  place,  Shirley's 
work  in  the  realistic  style  of  Jonson  and  of  Fletcher 
has  all  but  given  way  to  work  in  the  romantic  style 
of  Fletcher  and  of  Shakspere.  Two  plays,  The  Con- 
stant Maid  and  The  Politique  Father  (i.e.,  The 
Brothers  of  1652),  are  comedies  of  manners.  The 
other  nine  of  the  eleven  plays  extant  are  all  romantic. 
In  the  second  place,  the  plays  of  this  final  period 
include  several  of  the  best  of  Shirley's  works.  The 
Royal  Master  and  The  Cardinal  are  ranked  by  many 
critics  as  Shirley's  ablest  work  in  romantic  comedy 
and  romantic  tragedy  respectively;  and  The  Doubtful 
Heir,  The  Imposture,  The  Court  Secret,  and  even 

2  From  the  title-page  of  a  copy  of  the  1655  edition  in  the  possession 
of  the  present  writer. 

[292] 


THE  ROYAL  MASTER 

that  gay  little  farce  The  Sisters,  are  all  deserving  of 
cordial  commendation.  In  short,  the  plays  of  Shir- 
ley's closing  period  confirm  his  mastery  of  romantic 
drama. 

Earliest  and  most  delightful  of  these  eleven  plays 
is  The  Royal  Master:  "Acted  in  the  new  Theatre  in 
Dublin:  and  Before  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lord 
Deputie  of  Ireland,  in  the  Castle,"3  "on  New-yeares 
day  at  night,"4  entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register, 
March  13,  1637/8;  licensed  April  23,  1638;  and  pub- 
lished the  same  year.  It  is  a  play  notable  for  well- 
knit  plot,  effective  scenes,  pleasing  characterization, 
clever  dialogue,  and  poetic  atmosphere. 

The  principal  actions  in  the  plot  are  two:  first,  the 
attempt  of  the  king's  favorite,  Montalto,  to  strengthen 
his  ascendancy  by  thwarting  the  purposed  marriage 
of  the  king's  sister  to  the  Duke  of  Florence;  and, 
second,  Domitilla's  misplaced  infatuation  for  the 
king,  and  her  recovery.  To  make  his  influence  in  the 
state  secure,  Montalto  has  desired  for  himself  the 
hand  of  Theodosia,  sister  to  the  King  of  Naples.  He 
finds,  however,  that  the  king  intends  the  princess  for 
the  Duke  of  Florence,  the  brother  of  his  deceased 
queen.  To  thwart  this  treaty,  Montalto  contrives  a 
hunting-party  that  shall  bring  the  king  and  duke  to 

3  Title-page,   1638.     From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert 
Hoe,  Esq. 

4  Epilogue,  in  Works,  IV,  187,  and  note. 

C293] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

dine  at  the  country  house  of  Simphorosa,  a  noble 
widow,  in  whose  charming  daughter,  Domitilla,  the 
favorite  hopes  to  interest  the  duke.  At  the  same  time, 
he  covertly  informs  the  duke  that  Princess  Theodosia 
is  secretly  contracted  to  another  lover,  even  himself, 
and  therefore  must  not  wed  the  duke.  Fascinated 
with  Domitilla,  the  duke  is  not  sorry  for  an  excuse 
to  cast  off  Theodosia;  but  yet  he  hesitates.  At  this, 
Montalto  hints  to  the  duke's  secretary,  Riviero,  that 
the  princess  has  already  yielded  him  her  honor.  At 
the  same  time,  Montalto  reveals  to  Theodosia  the 
interest  of  the  duke  in  Simphorosa's  daughter.  All 
the  contending  forces  thus  aroused,  Shirley,  in  the 
fourth  act,  brings  together:  the  king  reproaches  the 
duke  for  his  desertion;  the  duke  brings  his  counter- 
charge against  the  princess;  the  king  and  princess 
clash;  and  then,  as  innocent  little  Domitilla  falls  in 
the  way  of  the  princess,  she,  for  the  moment,  pays 
dearly  for  her  imagined  rivalry.  Then  Montalto, 
discovering  that  his  charge  against  the  princess  is 
about  to  react  upon  himself,  endeavors  to  keep  all 
from  access  to  the  king  until  he  can  remove  the  only 
witness  to  his  charge,  Riviero.  Through  Montalto's 
sentries,  Riviero,  and  then  the  duke  himself,  try  with- 
out avail  to  gain  conference  with  the  king.  Young 
Octavio,  however,  they  allow  to  pass;  for  Montalto's 
creatures  know  him  only  as  the  favorite's  favorite. 


THE  ROYAL  MASTER 

Then  the  king  calls  Montalto  into  counsel;  he  fears 
that  the  duke's  charge  against  the  princess's  chastity 
is  true;  and  he  desires  to  find  some  nobleman  who 
will  marry  the  princess  to  conceal  her  guilt.  Mont- 
alto offers  himself  as  sacrifice.  The  king  embraces 
him,  and  seeks  to  find  for  him  some  great  reward. 
He  finds  it:  he  will  teach  Montalto  to  distinguish 
friends  from  foes;  he  will  pretend  to  frown  upon 
Montalto;  will  order  his  confinement;  he  will  en- 
courage all  who  will  to  proffer  charges;  will  note 
who  plead  Montalto's  cause;  then  he  will  summon 
Montalto  back  to  honor,  and  Montalto's  enemies 
shall  stand  revealed.  Instantly,  despite  Montalto's 
protest,  the  king  begins  to  put  his  plan  into  execu- 
tion :  he  orders  Montalto  and  Montalto's  faction  into 
confinement;  he  receives  the  accusations  of  Mont- 
alto's enemies.  Among  these  accusations,  Montalto's 
plot  against  the  duke,  and  his  slandering  of  the  prin- 
cess, are  now  supplemented  by  proof,  in  Montalto's 
own  handwriting,  that  he  was  responsible  for  the 
poisoning  of  Octavio's  father  several  years  before. 
And  yet,  despite  all  this  evidence,  Octavio  and  the 
duke's  secretary  Riviero,  who  are  directing  the  at- 
tack, find  to  their  amazement  that  the  king  supports 
Montalto.  They  see  Montalto  welcomed  back  in 
honor,  and  furnished  with  a  list  of  all  his  enemies. 
Then,  in  an  instant,  all  is  changed:  the  king  over- 
ly ] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

whelms  Montalto  with  the  charges  and  the  evidence 
against  him;  the  duke  and  the  princess,  who  have 
made  their  peace,  enter  to  add  their  adverse  influ- 
ence; the  king  orders  Montalto  to  his  doom. 

This  plot  dealing  with  the  intrigues  of  Montalto 
and  their  reaction  upon  their  author,  Shirley  man- 
ages with  great  skill.  The  exposition  and  motiva- 
tion ;  the  climax,  with  its  clash  of  duke  and  king,  king 
and  princess,  princess  and  Domitilla;  the  suspense 
in  the  king's  antechamber  as  man  after  man  endeavors 
to  achieve  admission;  the  excitement  of  the  falling 
action ;  the  final  suspense  as  the  king  heaps  new  hon- 
ors on  Montalto;  the  catastrophe,  sudden  and  over- 
whelming: all  these  are  capitally  conceived.  And 
then,  after  a  scene  devoted  to  the  happy  resolution 
of  the  Domitilla-action,  Shirley  returns  for  a  moment 
to  Montalto;  reveals  the  fact  that  Montalto  did  not 
cause  the  poisoning  of  Octavio's  father  after  all,  that 
Montalto's  letter  had  been  intercepted,  and  that  his 
intended  victim  lived  among  them  in  disguise— Ri- 
viero,  the  duke's  secretary.  And  thus  Shirley  con- 
cludes the  story  of  Montalto  by  commuting  his  sen- 
tence from  death  to  banishment. 

The  second  story— how  Domitilla  loved  the  king 
—  equals  the  Montalto-action  for  dramaturgic  skill, 
and  excels  it  in  poetic  charm.  At  the  opening  we 
find  Domitilla,  a  joyous  unspoiled  maiden  of  fifteen, 

C296] 


THE  ROYAL  MASTER 

living  in  the  shelter  of  her  mother's  country  house. 
The  hunting  dinner  makes  her  known  to  all  the 
court;  and  especially  she  attracts  the  notice  of  the 
king,  the  duke,  and  young  Octavio.  The  king  re- 
solves to  bestow  her  hand  and  fortune  upon  his  favor- 
ite, Montalto.  To  this  end,  he  finds  opportunity  to 
ask  the  maiden  whether  she  will  accept  a  husband 
of  his  choosing.  She  misunderstands  him,  thinks  he 
means  himself,  and  promises.  The  king,  unconscious 
of  the  mischief  wrought,  summons  Domitilla  and 
her  mother  to  his  court,  and  directs  Simphorosa  to 
prepare  her  daughter  for  Montalto.  Domitilla, 
meanwhile,  in  her  own  imagination  begins  to  play 
the  queen:  when  her  mother  attempts  to  mention 
Lord  Montalto,  she  will  not  hear  of  him;  when  Oc- 
tavio offers  her  his  heart,  she  can  think  of  him  only 
as  a  subject;  when  the  Duke  of  Florence  presents  a 
carcanet  of  diamonds,  she  fails  to  thank  him  and  flies 
abruptly  off  to  meet  the  king.  Then  follows  the  dis- 
covery of  her  mistake.  The  king  does  not  love  her; 
yet  she  can  only  love  the  king.  The  duke  offers  his 
love,  and  she  rejects  it.  With  her  rejection,  however, 
she  couples  something  more:  the  reconcilement  of 
the  duke  and  princess.  Her  mother  reveals  the  situ- 
ation to  the  king,  and  begs  his  aid  to  break  the  infatu- 
ation. Having  made  certain  that  Domitilla  is  vir- 
tuous beyond  temptation,  he  undertakes  her  cure.  He 

C297] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

asks  the  little  maid  to  be  his  mistress.  The  shock  of 
the  proposal  cures  her  love.  She  resists  the  king. 
Octavio  dares  to  intervene,  her  champion. 

King.     How's  this? 

Octavio.     Sir,  in  a  noble  cause;  if  you  to  whom 
In  the  first  place  truth  flies,  as  to  an  altar, 
Wave  her  religious  defence,  I  dare  die  for  her. 

King.     You  !  so  brave  ?  to  prison  with  him !  — 
We  will  correct  your  sauciness. 

Oct.  You  will  grace 

My  first  act,  sir,  and  get  me  fame,  by  suffering 
For  so  much  sweetness. 

Domitilla.  Let  not  your  displeasure, 

Great  sir,  fall  upon  him;  revenge  what  you 
Call  disobedience,  here. 

King.  You  owe  much  to 

His  confidence;  nor  is  there  any  punishment 
Beyond  your  love  and  liking  of  his  boldness; 
You  two  should  make  a  marriage  with  your  follies. 

Oct.     Let  Domitilla  make  Octavio 
So  blest. 

Dom.      My  lord,  you  now  deserve  I  should 
Be  yours,  whom,  with  the  hazard  of  the  king's 
Anger  and  your  own  life,  you  have  defended. 
There  is  a  spring  of  honour  here ;  and  to  it 
In  the  presence  of  the  king,  his  court,  and  heaven, 
I  dare  now  give  my  heart;  nor  is't  without 
My  duty  to  a  promise. 

H298] 


THE  ROYAL  MASTER 

Oct.  Now  you  make 

Octavio  happy. 

King.  'Tis  to  my  desires ; 

And  I  dare  wish  you  joys.    Forgive  this  practice; 
—  Nay,  pretty  Domitilla,  I  did  this 
But  to  divert  more  happily  thy  thoughts 
Of  me,  who  have  not  yet  paid  the  full  tribute 
To  my  Cesaria's  dust.    Again  let  me 
Congratulate  thy  choice  in  young  Octavio, 
Whose  birth  and  forward  virtue  will  deserve  thee.5 

In  that  part  of  the  action  that  relates  to  Domitilla, 
Shirley  enters  upon  a  field  that,  as  we  have  noticed, 
he  too  rarely  touches— the  field  of  character-develop- 
ment. Usually,  as  in  most  dramatic  romances  of  the 
Fletcherian  school,  the  characters  in  Shirley's  plays 
are  static:  whatever  be  their  nature  in  the  opening 
act,  that  nature  they  retain  without  spiritual  growth 
to  the  end  of  the  play;  or  else,  if  change  there  be,  it 
comes  abruptly  and  without  adequate  preparation— 
a  revolution,  not  an  evolution.  In  The  Royal  Master, 
however,  Shirley  has  given  us  in  Domitilla  a  delight- 
ful picture  of  character-development.  Through  all 
the  psychologic  steps  we  follow  her:  from  the  happy 
but  self-centered  innocence  of  girlhood,  through 
awakened  love  and  sorrow,  to  an  unselfish  dedication 
to  king,  to  princess,  and  to  noble  lover.    We  delight 

6  The  Royal  Master,  v,  i;  Works,  IV,  185-186. 

[299] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

in  her  not  only  for  her  strength  or  sweetness  at  any 
given  moment  but  also  for  the  growth  she  makes 
throughout  the  play. 

Utterly  different  from  the  character  of  Domitilla, 
yet  almost  equally  delightful  in  its  way,  is  the  char- 
acter of  her  "secretary,"  as  she  calls  him,  Bombo. 
Unable  either  to  read  or  write,  he  pores  upon  books 
he  cannot  understand— like  many  another  chaplain, 
he  declares.  He  has  a  pretty  wit;  but  fears  that  his 
renown  may  spread  abroad.  When  the  king  and  his 
hunting-party  stop  to  dine,  he  is  sure  that  their  visit 
was  to  search  him  out.  The  summons  of  the  king 
confirms  his  fears.  In  attendance  upon  Domitilla  at 
the  court,  he  hides  from  all ;  and  when  Montalto  falls, 
Bombo,  to  escape  succession  to  the  favorite's  place, 
steals  away  home.  In  his  humor  thus  to  fly  all 
worldly  honors,  Bombo  makes  an  excellent  foil  for 
his  ambitious  little  mistress,  Domitilla. 

Besides  displaying  Shirley's  management  of  plot 
and  character  to  best  advantage,  The  Royal  Master 
affords  an  excellent  example  of  Shirley's  sprightly 
dialogue.  In  illustration,  I  shall  quote  one  passage 
—  none  the  less  willingly  because  it  has  been  pre- 
viously commended  by  Gifford.6    It  is  from  the  first 

8  "It  is  impossible  not  to  notice  the  feeling,  gay  good  humour,  and 
poetic  excellence  of  this  little  dialogue." — Gifford,  in  Works,  IV,  119, 
note. 

[300] 


THE  ROYAL  MASTER 

meeting  of  Domitilla  and  Octavio,  at  the  moment 
before  the  arrival  of  the  hunting-party  at  her 
mother's  country  house: 

Enter  OCTAVIO. 

Oct.     I  kiss  your  fair  hand,  madam  Domitilla. 
The  king  and  duke  and  all  the  jolly  hunters, 
With  appetites  as  fierce  as  their  own  hounds, 
Will  be  here  presently. 

Dom.  I  hope  they  will  not 

Devour  us,  my  good  lord. 

Oct.     But  I  would  sit  and  feast,  and  feed  mine  eyes 
With  Domitilla's  beauty. 

Dom.  So,  my  lord ! 

Here  was  a  gentleman— you  could  not  choose 
But  meet  him— spake  your  dialect.    I  have 
Forgot  his  name,  but  he  was  some  great  lord. 

Oct.     Great  lord!  Fie!  What  an  ignorance  you  live  in. 
Not  to  be  perfect  in  a  great  lord's  name ! 
There  are  few  ladies  live  with  us  but  know 
The  very  pages.    Leave  this  darkness,  madam, 
And  shine  in  your  own  sphere,  where  every  star 
Hath  his  due  adoration. 

Dom.  Where? 

Oct.  The  court. 

Confine  such  beauty  to  a  country-house  ! 
Live  among  hinds,  and  thick-skinn'd  fellows,  that 
Make  faces,  and  will  hop  a  furlong  back 
To  find  the  t'other  leg  they  threw  away, 
To  shew  their  reverence!  with  things  that  squat, 

[30ij 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

When  they  should  make  a  curtesy!    To  court,  madam, 

And  live  not  thus,  for  shame  !  the  second  part 

Of  a  fond  anchorite.    We  can  distinguish 

Of  beauty  there,  and  wonder  without  spectacles; 

Write  volumes  of  your  praise,  and  tell  the  world 

How  envious  diamonds,  'cause  they  could  not 

Reach  to  the  lustre  of  your  eyes,  dissolv'd 

To  angry  tears !  the  roses  droop,  and  gathering 

Their  leaves  together,  seem  to  chide  their  blushes, 

That  they  must  yield  your  cheek  the  victory ! 

The  lilies,  when  they  are  censur'd  for  comparing 

With  your  more  clear  and  native  purity, 

Want  white  to  do  their  penance  in !  — 

Dom.  So,  so ! 

Have  you  done  now,  my  young  poetic  lord? 

Oct.     There  will  be  no  end,  madam,  of  your  praises. 

Dom.     And  to  no  end  you  have  spent  all  this  breath. 
Allow  all  this  were  wit,  that  some  did  think  us 
The  creatures  they  commend,  (and  those  whom  love 
Hath  curs'd  into  idolatry  and  verse, 
May  perhaps  do  so,)  we  do  know  ourselves 
That  we  are  no  such  things. 

Oct.  Is't  possible? 

Dom.     And  laugh  at  your  chimeras. 

Oct.  You  are  the  wiser. 

Dom.     If  this  be  your  court  practice,  let  me  dwell 
With  truth  and  plain  simplicity.7 

For  such  sprightly  dialogue  as  this,  for  firm  plot- 
structure  and  effective  scenes,  for  excellent  character- 

7  The  Royal  Master,  I,  ii;  Works,  IV,  118-119. 

[302] 


THE  ROYAL  MASTER 

delineation  and  for  the  delineation  of  characters  that 
grow,  and  finally,  for  poetic  atmosphere  and  roman- 
tic charm,  The  Royal  Master  is  not  only  one  of  the 
best  of  Shirley's  plays  but  also  one  of  the  most  attrac- 
tive romantic  comedies  of  the  Elizabethan  drama. 
We  need  not  wonder  that,  out  of  all  the  plays  of  Shir- 
ley, Schipper  has  selected  for  translation  into  Ger- 
man The  Royal  Master.9, 

8  James  Shirley,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke,  nebst  einer  Uber- 
setzung  seines  Dramas  "The  Royal  Master"  von  J.  Schipper  .  .  . 
Wien  und  Leipzig  .  .  .  igu.  Schipper  summarizes  his  impressions 
of  The  Royal  Master  as  follows: 

"Wie  schon  diese  Analyse  erkennen  lasst,  sind  die  beiden  Hand- 
lungen  des  Dramas  in  vortrefflicher  Weise  aufgebaut  und  miteinander 
verkniipft  worden.  Auch  die  Characteristik  der  Personen  desselben 
verdient  alles  Lob.  Der  edelmiitige  Konig  und  der  schurkische  Mon- 
talto,  die  leidenschaftliche  Theodosia  und  die  sanfte  Domitilla  sind  in 
der  gliicklichsten  Weise  kontrastriert.  Dies  unschuldsvolle  junge 
Madchen  erscheint  in  ihrer  schwarmerischen  Neigung  fur  den  edlen 
Konig,  sodann  in  ihrer  bitteren  Enttiiuschung  uber  ihren  Irrtum  und 
schliesslich  wieder  in  dem  schonen  Aufschwung  womit  sie  dem  fur 
ihre  scheinbar  bedrohte  Ehre  mannhaft  eintretenden  Octavio  sich 
zuwendet,  als  eine  der  anziehendsten  Frauengestalten,  die  Shirley 
geschaffen  hat. 

"Der  wackere  Jungling  der  sie  gewinnt,  ist  ihrer  wiirdig  und 
sticht  in  seiner  Ergebenheit  und  Treue  vorteilhaft  von  dem  wankel- 
mutigen  Herzog  ab. 

"Auch  die  komische  Person  des  Stiickes,  der  alte  Bombo,  ist  eine 
anziehende  Figur  und,  wenn  man  auch  gelegentlich  Ziige  teils  von 
Shakespeares  Falstaff,  teils  von  dessen  Malvolio  an  ihm  entdeckt, 
dennoch  eine  originelle  Personlichkeit."     (Page  199.) 


C303  3 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONTINUED 

FROM  THE  GENTLEMAN  OF  VENICE 
TO  THE  CONSTANT  MAID 

THORNDIKE,  in  his  suggestive  work  on 
English  tragedy,  remarks  that,  "in  Shir- 
ley, as  in  Massinger,  the  most  representa- 
tive plays,  and  certainly  those  most  satisfactory  to  our 
taste,  are  the  tragicomedies.  Bloodshed  and  horror 
and  grossness  of  language  and  situation  may  all  be 
absent,  and  the  story  of  love  and  intrigue,  even  if  it 
does  not  exalt  the  mind  or  purify  the  passions,  may  be 
altogether  delightful.  In  The  Royal  Master,  one  of 
the  best,  the  role  of  the  lustful  monarch  is  assumed 
for  a  single  scene,  only  to  cure  a  really  charming  hero- 
ine of  her  infatuation  for  royalty;  and  the  intriguing 
favorite  is  foiled,  the  banished  noble  vindicated,  and 
two  love  matches  completed  with  gracefulness  of 
language  and  dexterity  of  plot.  Unfortunately  Shir- 
ley's land  of  romance  is  rarely  so  wholesome  as  here, 
or  the  inhabitants  so  agreeable."1 

1  Ashley  H.  Thorndike,  Tragedy,  pp.  231-232. 

C304] 


THE  GENTLEMAN  OF  VENICE 

Thorndike's  concluding  sentence  is  especially  ap- 
plicable to  the  two  romances  that  we  must  next  dis- 
cuss: The  Gentleman  of  Venice  and  The  Politician. 
The  former,  licensed  October  30,  1639,  is  another  in- 
stance of  what  we  have  noted  in  The  Grateful  Ser- 
vant and  in  other  plays:  an  instance,  namely,  of  the 
combination  of  a  romantic  action  genuinely  attrac- 
tive with  another  action,  romantic  or  realistic,  con- 
spicuously repulsive.  The  first  of  these  two  plots 
centers  about  Giovanni,  the  supposed  son  of  the 
duke's  gardener  Roberto.  Despite  his  lowly  environ- 
ment, Giovanni  perfects  himself  in  noble  thought 
and  deed,  and  attracts  the  attention  of  the  duke's 
niece,  Bellaura.  When  he  resolves  to  take  service  in 
the  wars,  she  provides  him  with  armor  and  with  a 
letter  to  her  kinsman  the  commander.  In  an  assault 
that  follows,  Giovanni  so  highly  distinguishes  him- 
self that  the  duke  urges  him  to  name  his  own  reward. 
With  some  hesitation,  he  asks  the  hand  of  Bellaura. 
Her  pride  forbids.  Giovanni  returns  to  his  garden- 
ing. Meanwhile,  however,  Thomazo,  the  supposed 
son  of  the  duke,  has  been  convicted  of  high  treason. 
To  save  Thomazo,  his  sometime  nurse  Ursula  (the 
supposed  mother  of  Giovanni)  begs  of  the  duke  a 
pardon  for  her  son.  Then  she  reveals  that  her  son  is 
the  worthless  Thomazo,  changed  in  infancy,  and  that 
Giovanni  is  the  rightful  heir.  So  the  duke's  true  son 
is  married  to  Bellaura. 

C305] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

The  other  principal  action  of  this  play  centers 
about  Cornari,  his  wife  Claudiana,  and  an  English 
gentleman,  Florelli.  Cornari— of  great  wealth  but 
childless— is  determined  that  his  rascally  nephew 
Malipiero  shall  not  be  his  heir.  To  prevent  this,  he 
kidnaps  Florelli  and  confines  him  in  his  palace,  to 
the  end  that  the  foreigner  shall  get  his  wife  with 
child.  When  Cornari,  believing  that  he  has  forced 
his  wife  and  his  prisoner  to  do  his  will,  is  about  to 
slay  the  latter,  the  confession  of  Florelli  to  the  sup- 
posed priest  (Cornari  in  disguise)  proves  to  Cornari 
the  virtue  of  them  both,  and  shames  him  into  the  aban- 
doning of  his  design.  For  this  change  of  purpose, 
chance  brings  him  his  reward :  the  rascal  nephew 
Malipiero  is  caught  with  Thomazo  in  attempted 
treason ;  and  the  outcome  is  his  genuine  reform. 

The  repulsiveness  of  this  second  action  in  The 
Gentleman  of  Venice  warrants,  perhaps,  the  silence 
with  which  Schelling  treats  the  entire  play.2  And 
yet,  if  one  can  ignore  the  subject-matter  and  consider 
only  the  technique  of  the  play,  one  can  understand 
why,  in  the  reign  of  Charles  I,  it  did  not  lack  "the 
best  hands  to  applaud  it  in  the  theatre."3    Although 

2  Although  he  discusses  every  other  play  of  Shirley,  Schelling  names 
The  Gentleman  of  Venice  only  in  his  "List  of  Plays"  {Elizabethan 
Drama,  n,  568)  and  in  a  foot-note  reference  to  Fleay  {Ibid.,  II,  286, 
note). 

3  Dedication  to  The  Gentleman  of  Venice,  in  Works,  V,  3. 

L3061 


THE  POLITICIAN 

the  two  plots  are  not  logically  related,  they  are  skil- 
fully interwoven.  Malipiero,  especially,  constitutes 
a  lively  connecting  link  between  the  two  actions:  he 
is  the  occasion  of  the  Cornari-plot;  and  his  escapade 
with  the  duke's  supposed  son,  Thomazo,  brings  about 
the  revelation  that  solves  the  Giovanni-plot.  The 
play  is  more  notable,  however,  for  the  effectiveness 
of  individual  scenes.  Conspicuous  among  these,  at 
least  for  realism,  are  Malipiero's  quarrel  with  his 
uncle4  and  the  night  of  riot  at  the  courtezan's.5 
These  scenes,  indeed,  are  worthy  of  Restoration  com- 
edy at  its  best.  And  even  better  is  the  characteriza- 
tion. All  the  leading  characters— Cornari,  Claudi- 
ana,  Florelli,  Giovanni,  Bellaura,  Thomazo,  Mali- 
piero—are  clearly  drawn,  but  the  duke's  gardener, 
Roberto,  and  his  froward  wife,  Ursula,  are  really 
notable  creations.  That  such  scenes  and  characters 
appear  in  the  same  play  with  the  Cornari-story  is 
most  unfortunate. 

The  Politician,  which,  in  the  lack  of  definite  infor- 
mation, we  have  ventured  to  place  in  the  year  1639, 
is  a  somber  and,  at  times,  repulsive  tragedy,  in  which 
political  ambition  is  the  motive,  lust  and  assassination 
are  the  accepted  means,  and  the  miscarriage  of  the  vil- 
lain's plans  is  the  cause  of  downfall.    Gotharus,  "the 

4  The  Gentleman  of  Venice,  I,  i;  Works,  V,  5-10. 

5  Ibid.,  Ill,  iv ;  Works,  v,  47-54. 

C307  3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

politician,"  designing  to  control  the  throne  of  Nor- 
way, first  despatches  Turgesius,  the  prince  royal,  and 
Duke  Olaus,  the  prince's  granduncle,  on  a  far  cam- 
paign, with  the  purpose  that  the  prince  shall  lose  his 
life;  then  marries  the  lustful  king  to  Marpisa,  widow 
of  Count  Altomarus  and  long  Gotharus's  mistress; 
and  plans  that  he  will  advance  Marpisa's  son,  Haral- 
dus — of  whom  Gotharus  believes  himself  the  father 
—  as  successor  to  the  crown.  Finding  that  Haraldus 
is  too  innocent  to  be  his  efficient  tool  and  hearing 
that  Prince  Turgesius  is  marching  home  victorious, 
Gotharus  resolves  to  debauch  the  character  of  the  for- 
mer and  to  cause  the  asassination  of  the  latter.  In 
this  twofold  attempt,  however,  Gotharus  begins  his 
downfall.  Haraldus,  made  drunk  by  the  politician's 
creatures  and  overwhelmed  with  the  discovery  of  his 
mother's  relations  with  Gotharus,  dies  of  a  fever  and 
a  broken  heart.  The  supposed  assassination  of  Prince 
Turgesius  stirs  the  populace  to  riotous  rebellion.  The 
army  clamors  at  the  gates.  Marpisa  turns  against 
Gotharus.  To  escape  the  rabble,  he  slays  one  of  his 
confederates,  and,  after  long  and  hopeless  flight, 
takes  refuge  in  a  coffin  prepared  for  Prince  Turge- 
sius. The  rabble,  finding  the  coffin,  march  forth  to 
bury  it  with  honors.  They  meet  the  army  headed  by 
Duke  Olaus  and  the  living  Turgesius;  and,  opening 
the  coffin,   they  find,  within,  the  politician— dead. 


THE  POLITICIAN 

Then  comes  Marpisa;  boasts  that  she  has  poisoned 
Gothams  for  the  death  of  Haraldus,  her  son;  and, 
from  the  same  poison,  dies  before  them  all.  Turge- 
sius,  who  has  escaped  death  through  the  loyalty  of 
the  supposed  assassin,  restores  his  penitent  father  to 
the  throne,  and  announces  his  purpose  to  wed  Albina, 
the  wronged  and  virtuous  widow  of  the  politician. 

Of  the  power  of  this  play,  from  scene  to  scene,  the 
following  passage  from  the  final  act  is  a  concrete 
illustration: 

An  Apartment  in  the  Palace.    Enter  King  and  Marpisa. 

King.     Oh,  I  am  lost !  and,  my  soul  bleeds  to  think, 
By  my  own  dotage  upon  thee. 

Marpisa.  I  was  curs'd 

When  I  first  saw  thee,  poor,  wind-shaken  king! 
I  have  lost  my  son. 

King.  Thy  honour,  impious  woman, 

Of  more  price  than  a  son,  or  thy  own  life. 
I  had  a  son  too,  whom  my  rashness  sent 
To  another  world,  my  poor  Turgesius. 
What  sorcery  of  thy  tongue  and  eyes  betray'd  me? 

Marp.     I  would  I  had  been  a  basilisk,  to  have  shot 
A  death  to  thy  dissembling  heart,  when  I 
Gave  myself  up  thy  queen  !    I  was  secure, 
Till  thou,  with  the  temptation  of  greatness, 
And  flattery,  didst  poison  my  sweet  peace; 
And  shall  thy  base  fears  leave  me  now  a  prey 
To  rebels? 

King.     I  had  been  happy  to  have  left 

[309] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Thee  sooner.    But  begone !  get  to  some  wilderness 
Peopled  with  serpents,  and  engender  with 
Some  dragon  like  thyself. 

Marp.  Ha!  ha! 

King.     Dost  laugh,  thou  prodigy,  thou  shame  of 
woman ! 

Marp.     Yes,  and  despise  thee,  dotard.    Vex  till  thy 
soul 
Break  from  thy  rotten  flesh;  I  will  be  merry 
At  thy  last  groan. 

King.  O,  my  poor  boy !  my  son  ! 

His  wound  is  printed  here. — That  false  Gothams, 
Your  wanton  goat,  I  fear,  practis'd  with  thee 
His  death. 

Marp.     'Twas  thy  own  act  and  timorous  heart,  in 
hope 
To  be  secure.    I  glory  in  the  mention, 
Thou  murderer  of  thy  son ! 

Enter  Hormenus. 

Hor.     Oh,  sir,  if  ever,  stand  upon  your  guard ! 
The  army,  which  you  thought  scattered  and  broke, 
Is  grown  into  a  great  and  threat'ning  body, 
Led  by  the  duke  Olaus,  your  lov'd  uncle; 
Is  marching  hither;  all  your  subjects  fly  to  him.       [Exit.] 

Marp.     Ha !  ha ! 

King.     Curse  on  thy  spleen !     Is  this  a  time  for 
laughter, 
When  horror  should  afflict  thy  guilty  soul  ? 
Hence,  mischief! 

Marp.  Not  to  obey  thee,  shadow  of  a  king, 


THE  POLITICIAN 

Am  I  content  to  leave  thee ;  and,  but  I  would  not 
Prevent  thy  greater  sorrow  and  vexation, 
Now  I  would  kill  thee,  coward. 

King.  Treason!  treason! 

Marp.     Ay,  ay;  who  comes  to  your  rescue? 

King.  Are  all  fled? 

Marp.     Slaves  do  it  naturally. 

King.  Canst  thou  hope  to  'scape? 

Marp.     I  am  mistress  of  my  fate ;  and  do  not  fear 
Their  inundation,  their  army  coming. 
It  does  prepare  my  triumph.    They  shall  give 
Me  liberty,  and  punish  thee  to  live. 

King.     Undone,  forsaken,  miserable  king! 

[Exeunt  severally.]* 

No  single  scene,  however,  can  give  an  adequate 
conception  of  the  cumulative  effect  of  the  entire  play. 
In  theme  and  tone,  The  Politician  is  vaguely  remi- 
niscent both  of  Hamlet  and  of  Macbeth:  like  the  lat- 
ter, it  has  for  its  protagonists  an  ambitious  man  and 
woman  who  stop  at  nothing  to  attain  their  ends;  like 
the  former,  it  deals  with  the  corrupt  conditions  of  a 
northern  court  and  with  a  series  of  attempts  against 
the  rightful  heir.  In  Marpisa  and  in  Gotharus,  we 
note  something  of  character-development  from  scene 
to  scene.  Particularly  in  the  closing  act— in  the  scene 
just  quoted  and  in  that  which  follows— the  ferocity 
of  the  erstwhile  timorous   Marpisa   approaches   to 

6  The  Politician,  v,  i;  Works,  v,  162-164. 

D"3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

magnificence.7  But  the  play  has  nothing  of  the  pro- 
found psychology  of  a  Shaksperian  masterpiece.  It 
impresses  one  rather  for  its  swift,  tense  scenes,  its 
gloom,  its  horror.  Nor  does  the  survival  of  king  and 
prince  and  duke  and  injured  wife  render  The  Poli- 
tician less  a  tragedy.  Shirley  has  not  made  these 
characters  so  interesting  as  to  violate  the  unity  of 
effect.  Not  these  but  the  tragic  figures  are  the  pro- 
tagonists. Gotharus  and  Marpisa  aspire,  suffer,  die. 
Haraldus  dies;  and,  ere  he  dies,  he  suffers.  And  per- 
meating all  is  the  atmosphere  of  social  rottenness: 
the  king's  lust  for  Marpisa  and  for  the  chaste  Albina; 
the  double  adultery  of  Gotharus  and  Marpisa;  the 
piteous  life  and  death  of  young  Haraldus— the  law- 
ful issue  of  Marpisa  and  Count  Altomarus,  yet  be- 
lieved by  Gotharus,  by  the  court,  and,  for  a  tragic 
hour,  by  himself,  to  be  the  unlawful  issue  of  Marpisa 
and  Gotharus.  Such  is  Shirley's  The  Politician: 
terrible,  despite  the  survival  of  many  innocent;  effec- 
tive, notwithstanding  clap-trap  and  the  absence  of 
profound  psychology;  a  romantic  tragedy  that  is 
almost  notable. 

Whether  the  repulsive  element  that  we  have  just 

7  Of  the  latter  scene  {The  Politician,  v,  ii;  Works,  v,  164-176) 
Schelling  writes:  "Strained  to  the  verge  of  improbability  though  much 
of  it  is,  there  is  a  holding  power  in  the  last  scene  of  this  tragedy, 
into  which  is  crowded  the  unexpected  discovery  of  the  dead  traitor, 
the  pitiable  lamentations  of  his  miserable  wife,  the  splendid  Marpisa 
at  bay,  and  the  reconciliation  of  the  prince  and  his  father." — Schelling, 
Elizabethan  Drama,  II,  320. 


ST.   PATRICK   FOR  IRELAND 

noted  in  The  Gentleman  of  Venice  and  in  The  Poli- 
tician, was  characteristic  also  of  the  two  lost  plays, 
The  Tragedy  of  St.  Albans  and  Look  to  the  Lady, 
entered  in  the  Stationers'  Register  on  February  14 
and  March  11,  respectively,  in  the  year  1639/40,  is  a 
subject  only  for  conjecture.  We  find,  however,  some- 
thing of  this  same  repulsiveness  in  that  strange  play 
St.  Patrick  for  Ireland,  entered  in  the  Stationers' 
Register  on  April  28,  1640.  Of  this  play,  according 
to  Schipper,  the  dramatis  personce  may  be  classified 
as  "christliche  Priester  und  heidnische  Barden  und 
Magier;  Engel,  Geister  und  auch  Schlangen." 
Nominally  a  drama  centering  about  the  struggle  be- 
tween paganism  and  Christianity  in  Ireland,  the  play 
becomes,  in  fact,  a  jumble  of  lofty  religious  fervor, 
blood-and-thunder  magic,  miracles,  licentiousness, 
and  horse-play.  On  the  one  hand,  two  youths  dis- 
guise themselves  as  statues  in  the  temple,  and  thus 
gain  opportunity  to  meet  the  king's  daughters,  their 
willing  mistresses;  another  maiden  is  violated  by  a 
prince  masquerading  as  a  god;  and  a  magic  bracelet 
that  renders  the  wearer  invisible,  enables  a  servant 
to  play  all  sorts  of  pranks.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
play  presents  a  not  unworthy  picture  of  St.  Patrick, 
includes  the  conversion  of  the  royal  family,  and  cul- 
minates gloriously  in   the  expulsion  of  the  snakes 

8  Schipper,  James  Shirley,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke,  p.  205. 

C3I33 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

from  Ireland.  Further  description  or  discussion  of 
the  play  would  be  superfluous.  No  wonder  that  St. 
Patrick  was  never  licensed  for  the  London  stage,  and 
that  the  promised  "second  part"9  is  non-extant! 

From  the  tainted  atmosphere  of  The  Gentleman  of 
Venice,  The  Politician,  and  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland, 
it  is  refreshing  to  pass  even  to  the  triviality  of  The 
Constant  Maid.  As  the  licensing  of  this  play  is  not 
recorded,  and  as  the  entry  in  the  Stationers'  Register 
was  upon  the  same  day  as  that  of  St.  Patrick  for  Ire- 
land—namely, on  April  28,  1640—  The  Constant 
Maid  has  been  usually  assigned  to  the  years  of  Shir- 
ley's residence  in  Dublin.  Were  we,  however,  to 
judge  of  the  date  of  its  composition  by  the  emphasis 
upon  complication  and  episode,  by  the  absence  of 
individual  characterization  —  unless  the  conventional 
usurer  and  country  gull  be  accounted  individual  — 
by  the  reversion  in  subject  to  London  life  and  man- 
ners, and  by  the  slightness  of  the  play  in  all  respects, 
we  should  be  likely,  on  the  strength  of  this  internal 
evidence,  to  assign  the  play  rather  to  the  period  of 
Love  Tricks  and  other  early  imitative  work. 

Such  as  it  is,  the  main  action  of  The  Constant  Maid 

9  See  the  last  line  of  the  prologue,  in  Works,  iv,  365,  and  the  epi- 
logue, Works,  iv,  443.  Krapp,  in  his  monograph  The  Legend  of  Saint 
Patrick's  Purgatory,  Its  Later  Literary  History,  p.  vi,  note  2,  is 
"inclined  to  think"  that,  "though  there  is  no  direct  mention  of  the 
Purgatory,  ...  it  was  to  have  been  the  subject  of  the  second  part" 
of  Shirley's  play. 


THE  CONSTANT  MAID 

is  at  least  a  clever  series  of  variations  upon  the  ancient 
proverb  that  the  course  of  true  love  never  did  run 
smooth.  Hartwell,  a  young  gentleman  of  good  birth 
and  character  but  limited  means,  is  the  accepted  lover 
of  Frances,  daughter  of  the  wealthy  widow  Bellamy. 
The  mother,  however,  abruptly  withdraws  her  ap- 
proval of  the  match,  and  commands  Frances  to  accept 
instead  the  suit  of  Master  Startup,  a  rich  countryman 
who  is  half  a  fool.  Then  the  widow  offers  herself 
and  her  fortune  to  her  daughter's  lover,  Hartwell. 
He,  by  the  advice  of  his  friend  Playfair  (the  hero 
of  the  second  action),  resolves  to  pretend  to  accept 
the  widow's  offer,  in  order  that  he  may  continue  his 
attendance  upon  Frances.  Frances's  nurse,  how- 
ever, overhears  this  plot,  and  determines,  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  countryman,  to  thwart  it.  Before  Hartwell 
can  explain  the  stratagem  to  his  lady-love,  the  nurse 
sets  on  the  foolish  Master  Startup  to  tell  Frances  that 
Hartwell  woos  her  mother.  By  chance,  Hartwell  at 
that  very  moment  avows  to  the  widow  his  acceptance 
of  her  hand;  and  the  daughter  overhears  them.  To 
follow  up  this  advantage,  the  nurse  connives  with 
Startup  to  admit  him  that  night  to  Frances's  cham- 
ber. Unwisely,  however,  the  nurse  reveals  her  pur- 
poses to  Hartwell's  servant;  and  he,  in  turn,  reveals 
the  plot  to  Master  Hartwell.  Hartwell,  that  he  may 
test  the  true  feeling  of  Mistress  Frances,  arranges  to 

[315] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

appear  in  Startup's  stead.  Startup,  to  avoid  suspi- 
cion, has  retired  early;  Hartwell's  servant  tells  him 
that  Hartwell  is  seeking  him  to  slay  him;  and  this  so 
frightens  Startup  that  he  flees  to  the  fields  dressed 
only  in  his  shirt.  By  this  device,  Hartwell  obtains 
possession  of  his  rival's  clothes  and  opportunity.  The 
nurse,  meanwhile,  to  prove  to  Frances  the  worthless- 
ness  of  Hartwell,  tells  her  that  her  mother  did  but 
pretend  an  offer  of  love  to  test  him,  and  that  he  in- 
stantly accepted.  Frances,  however,  believing  that 
Hartwell  likewise  counterfeited,  remains  constant. 
Then  the  nurse  reenters,  leading  Hartwell  disguised 
as  Startup.  This  disguise  Frances  penetrates;  but 
Hartwell,  not  comprehending  this,  believes  that  her 
vows  of  love  for  him  are  meant  for  Startup.  Before 
she  can  explain,  they  are  interrupted  by  an  alarm: 
Hartwell,  despairing,  leaves  the  house;  and  Frances 
is  left  mourning.  Startup,  meanwhile,  convoyed  by 
Hartwell's  servant,  flies  through  the  cold  and  terror 
of  the  fields,  narrowly  escapes  a  meeting  with  the 
raging  Hartwell,  and  at  last  is  arrested  by  the  con- 
stable and  watch.  In  the  midst  of  the  excitement 
occasioned  by  the  disappearance  of  the  rivals,  a  coun- 
tryman arrives  at  Mistress  Bellamy's.  Startup,  he 
declares,  has  trifled  with  his  daughter,  and  must 
make  amends  by  marriage.  Frances  rejoices  at  the 
prospect  of  being  rid  of  Startup;  but  her  mother 


THE  CONSTANT  MAID 

quickly  turns  her  joy  to  grief.  At  first,  declares  the 
mother,  she  did  but  pretend  a  love  for  Hartwell ;  but 
when  he  offered  a  return  of  her  affection,  her  love 
became  real:  she,  Bellamy,  must  marry  Hartwell 
regardless  of  her  daughter.  As  soon,  however,  as  the 
mother  has  sufficiently  tested  Frances's  love  for 
Hartwell,  she  admits  that  she  again  has  but  pre- 
tended: she  has  now  tested  both,  and  the  marriage 
of  Hartwell  and  Frances  soon  shall  be.  This  happy 
prospect,  however,  is  shattered  presently  by  awful 
news.  The  countryman  and  the  watch,  in  search  of 
Startup,  have  discovered  Hartwell  dressed  in  Start- 
up's clothes,  and  have  accused  him  of  the  death  of 
Startup ;  and  Hartwell  has  confessed  the  murder.  In 
the  court-room,  in  hearing  of  Frances  and  her 
mother,  he  again  admits  his  guilt,  and  adds  that  the 
scorn  of  Frances  was  the  cause.  Then  he  discovers 
his  mistake;  he  learns  that  Frances  has  been,  through- 
out, the  Constant  Maid.  He  retracts  his  plea  of 
guilty;  and,  at  that  moment,  the  watch  bring  Startup, 
living,  into  court.10  Hartwell  and  Frances  are  at 
last  united. 

My  relation  of  this  the  first  action  of  The  Con- 
stant Maid  has  resulted  in  a  lengthy  narrative ;  but  by 
no  other  method  could  I  show  concretely  the  real 
nature  of  the  play.    Aside  from  the  figure  of  the  fool- 

10  Cf.  the  resolution  in  The  Wedding,  v,  ii;  Works,  I,  445. 

[317] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

ish  Startup,  the  interest  results  solely  from  the  rapid 
and  unexpected  twists  and  turns  of  fortune.  The 
setting  and  characters  are  those  of  the  comedy  of 
London  life  and  manners;  but  the  use  of  surprise 
upon  surprise  is  almost  the  method  of  Fletcherian 
romance. 

The  second  action,  fortunately,  may  be  more  briefly 
told:  a  new  and  more  realistic  version  of  the  elope- 
ment of  Shakspere's  Jessica  and  Lorenzo.  As  Hor- 
net, the  usurer,  is  about  to  poison  a  niece,  his  ward, 
that  he  may  take  her  fortune,  her  lover,  Playfair, 
learns  of  his  intent.  To  cover  her  flight,  Playfair 
arranges  with  a  group  of  friends  and  servants  to  im- 
personate the  king  and  a  group  of  lords,  to  summon 
Hornet  to  their  banquet,  to  knight  him,  and  to  enter- 
tain him  with  a  masque.  In  the  midst  of  this,  Hornet 
discovers  his  eloping  niece  dancing  with  Playfair— 
only  to  be  persuaded  that  she  is  not  his  niece  but  the 
daughter  of  his  host,  Sir  Clement.  Next  morning, 
Hornet  discovers  his  mistake,  and  surrenders  to  his 
niece  her  fortune  lest  his  plot  to  poison  her  be 
charged  against  him. 

Between  these  two  actions  of  the  play,  the  connec- 
tion is  but  accidental.  Playfair,  the  hero  of  the  sec- 
ond action,  is  a  friend  of  Hartwell,  the  hero  of  the 
first;  Hornet,  the  usurer,  appears  in  the  opening 
scenes  as  a  suitor  to  Widow  Bellamy;  and  both  actions 


THE  CONSTANT  MAID 

end  in  the  court  of  Justice  Clement:  these— these  only 
—  are  the  connecting  links.  Superficial  in  structure, 
the  play  shows  equal  haste  in  characterization:  only 
in  the  stock  characters  of  Startup  and  Hornet  are  the 
persons  individual.  These  two  figures,  together  with 
the  succession  of  surprises  in  the  Hartwell-Frances 
action,  are  what  "make"  the  play.  It  is  chiefly  note- 
worthy as  a  reversion  from  the  romantic  plays  of 
Shirley's  final  period  to  the  realistic  plays  of  Shirley's 
youth. 

To  synthesize  our  impressions  of  the  four  plays 
considered  in  this  chapter,  is  not  easy.  They  have  too 
few  points  in  common.  The  Constant  Maid  is  clean, 
clever,  but  trivial  and  amateurish;  to  be  remembered 
only  as  one  more  essay  in  the  comedy  of  manners.  St. 
Patrick  for  Ireland  is  beneath  remark.  The  Gentle- 
man of  Venice,  in  so  far  as  it  tells  the  story  of  Gio- 
vanni and  his  foster-parents,  is  delightful  comedy; 
but  in  so  far  as  it  deals  with  the  endeavors  of  Cornari, 
it  has  a  repulsiveness  that  neither  the  dramaturgic 
skill  of  Shirley  nor  the  virtue  of  Cornari's  wife  can 
soften.  The  Politician,  on  the  other  hand,  notwith- 
standing its  offensive  theme,  possesses  a  tragic  power 
of  plot,  of  situation,  and  of  character,  that  places  it 
among  the  abler  plays  of  Shirley.  Little  in  common, 
then,  have  these  four  plays;  but  three  of  them  are 
repulsive  in  material,  and  yet  they  are  not  realistic 
but  romantic. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONTINUED 

FROM  THE  DOUBTFUL  HEIR  TO 
THE  BROTHERS  OF  1652 

THE  plays  considered  in  the  two  chapters 
just  preceding  vary  materially  in  their  ar- 
tistic effectiveness  and  in  their  ethical 
acceptability.  On  the  one  hand,  The  Royal  Master 
is  a  play  both  ably  written  and  delightful.  On  the 
other  hand,  The  Gentleman  of  Venice  and,  to  an  even 
greater  extent,  The  Politician  combine  with  excel- 
lence of  treatment  an  extreme  repulsiveness  of  sub- 
ject-matter; St.  Patrick  for  Ireland,  except  for  the 
poetic  beauty  of  an  occasional  passage,  is  pleasing 
neither  artistically  nor  ethically;  and  The  Constant 
Maid,  although  morally  inoffensive,  is  dramaturgi- 
cally  a  return  to  the  amateurish  efforts  of  our  poet's 
youth.  Now,  however,  in  the  three  chapters  that  are 
to  complete  our  discussion  of  Shirley's  last  dramatic 
period,  we  come  to  six  successive  plays— The  Doubt- 
ful Heir,  The  Imposture,  The  Politique  Father  (i.e., 
The  Brothers  of   1652),  The  Cardinal,  The  Sisters, 

[320] 


THE  DOUBTFUL   HEIR 

and  The  Court  Secret—  all  of  which  are  both  pleas- 
ingly and  ably  written,  and  one  of  which—  T he  Car- 
dinal—  is  a  great  tragedy  not  only  in  comparison  with 
the  other  plays  of  Shirley  but  in  comparison  with  the 
plays  of  any  of  the  later  Elizabethan  dramatists. 
And  of  these  six  plays,  all  but  one—  The  Politique 
Father— belong  not  to  the  realistic  but  to  the  roman- 
tic school. 

The  first  of  these,  The  Doubtful  Heir,  which  was 
licensed  June  i,  1640,  is  a  capital  bit  of  Fletcherian 
romance,  swift  of  action,  exciting  of  episode,  fertile 
of  surprise,  and  genuinely  poetic.  Just  as  Olivia,  the 
Queen  of  Murcia,  is  about  to  be  married  to  Leonario, 
the  Prince  of  Arragon,  their  preparations  are  inter- 
rupted by  the  invasion  of  one  Ferdinand  who  claims 
to  be  the  rightful  heir  to  the  throne,  a  cousin  of  the 
queen,  believed  to  have  died  in  childhood.  Against 
this  pretender,  the  bridegroom  leads  the  army,  and 
returns  victorious,  bringing  the  claimant  prisoner. 
With  the  pretender  comes  a  gentle  page,  Tiberio; 
and  this  page  a  pretty  love-scene  in  the  prison  reveals 
to  the  audience  as  Ferdinand's  betrothed,  Rosania. 
Summoned  to  stand  trial  for  high  treason,  Ferdinand 
boldly  avows  himself  the  rightful  king,  and  declares 
that  one  is  present  who  could,  if  he  would,  attest  his 
royal  birth.  When,  however,  the  aged  chancellor 
reproaches  Ferdinand  for  endangering  the  lives  of 

[321] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

others,  Ferdinand  says  no  more.  The  queen,  much 
moved  by  Ferdinand's  noble  bearing  and  by  his 
words  of  parting  to  his  page,  commands  the  inter- 
mission of  the  trial  during  her  absence  from  the 
room.  The  nobles,  however,  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  Prince  of  Arragon,  are  about  to  pass  sentence 
on  the  pretender,  when  the  queen,  warned  by  the 
chancellor,  returns.  Highly  indignant,  the  queen 
reproves  her  betrothed,  the  Prince  of  Arragon;  par- 
dons the  pretender;  declares  that  they  may  yet  find 
Ferdinand's  title  to  the  kingdom  clear,  and  com- 
mands him  to  escort  her  from  the  court! 

As  might  have  been  expected  in  a  Fletcherian  ro- 
mance, this  seeming  resolution  is  but  the  beginning  of 
a  further  complication.  Married  to  the  pretender, 
the  queen  becomes  wild  at  his  neglect.  She  questions 
the  page  as  to  whether  Ferdinand  has  not  a  mistress; 
and,  seeing  Ferdinand  approach,  she  tries  to  arouse 
his  jealousy  by  caressing  this  supposed  Tiberio,  and 
then  leaves  the  two  together.  Then  follows  a  sorrow- 
ful meeting  between  Ferdinand  and  his  disguised 
Rosania.  He  explains  that  he  consented  to  the  mar- 
riage ceremony  only  to  make  possible  his  escape  with 
her;  and  that  with  the  queen  his  marriage  never  has 
been  consummated.  Ultimately,  after  Ferdinand 
has  overruled  Rosania's  purpose  to  leave  him  to  the 
queen,  he  prevails  upon  her  to  obey  the  queen's  sum- 


THE  DOUBTFUL   HEIR 

mons  to  her  chamber  and  to  leave  to  him  the  solution 
of  the  meeting.  When  the  queen,  smarting  at  Fer- 
dinand's continued  neglect  and  now  assured  that  he 
has  a  mistress  in  the  court,  is  endeavoring  to  woo  his 
page  (Rosania-Tiberio)  to  sinful  love,  Ferdinand 
brings  the  nobles  to  the  royal  chamber  to  take  them 
in  the  fact.  To  his  surprise,  the  queen  receives  his 
charges  with  composure;  and,  while  her  maid,  in  an 
inner  room,  is  disguising  the  page  in  woman's  garb, 
her  Majesty  reads  the  court  a  pretty  lecture.  And 
then,  just  as  Ferdinand,  breaking  through  the  queen's 
pretense,  is  about  to  seize  upon  the  "boy,"  a  spy  em- 
ployed by  the  Prince  of  Arragon  reveals  the  plot:  the 
page  in  woman's  dress  is  indeed  a  woman  and— is 
Ferdinand's  mistress! 

Again  imprisoned,  and  condemned  to  death,  Fer- 
dinand awaits  his  execution.  Instead,  he  finds  him- 
self hailed  by  the  chancellor  and  a  throng  of  nobles 
as  the  rightful  king.  The  chancellor  it  was  that  res- 
cued him  from  death  in  childhood  and  arranged  for 
his  escape  across  the  border;  the  chancellor,  repent- 
ing his  long  silence,  now  testifies  to  Ferdinand's  iden- 
tity. Enthroned,  King  Ferdinand  summons  his 
sometime  page,  Rosania,  to  become  his  queen,  and 
declares  that  it  is  now  no  blemish  to  Olivia  still  to  be 
a  virgin.  Olivia,  he  announces,  shall  now  be  married 
to  the  Prince  of  Arragon.    Suddenly,  however,  their 

[323] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

joy  is  interrupted;  the  Prince  of  Arragon  with  an 
unexpected  host  has  scaled  the  walls!  King  Ferdi- 
nand and  his  court  are  instant  prisoners.  With  a 
command  that  Ferdinand  be  put  to  death,  the  victor 
sweeps  Olivia  to  the  chapel  to  be  made  his  bride. 
For  a  last  time  Ferdinand  and  Rosania  say  farewell. 
The  bearded  general  of  the  Prince  of  Arragon  bears 
down  upon  them,  tears  off  his  false  beard,  and  reveals 
—  Rosania's  father,  kinsman  of  the  chancellor,  the 
guardian  of  the  infant  Ferdinand!  The  army  that 
Arragon  supposed  to  be  his  own  is  Valentia's  army 
sent  to  the  aid  of  Ferdinand  upon  his  first  repulse. 
It  has  intercepted  Arragon's  messengers,  and  has 
tricked  him  with  its  feigned  support.  And  so,  at- 
tended by  a  loyal  and  victorious  host,  King  Ferdi- 
nand resumes  his  reign,  and  is  married  to  his  boy- 
hood sweetheart,  fair  Rosania. 

Such  is  the  romantic  story  of  The  Doubtful  Heir: 
swift,  exciting,  unexpected,  with  a  final  suspense  that 
keeps  one  almost  breathless.  That  it  is  a  reworking 
of  old  material,  we  grant:  the  royal  bridegroom  lead- 
ing to  victory  the  army  of  the  queen  may  have  been 
(I  do  not  say  was)  suggested  by  the  unused  portion 
of  El  Castigo  del  Penseque  —  the  play  from  which 
Shirley  drew  much  of  his  material  for  The  Oppor- 
tunity; the  situation  of  a  queen  forcing  her  hand  upon 
a  prince  previously  contracted  and  ultimately  true  to 

[324] 


THE  DOUBTFUL   HEIR 

his  first  love,  is  but  a  better  version  of  the  Sophia- 
Arcadius-Polidora  action  in  The  Coronation;  the 
scene  in  which  the  chancellor  hails  as  king  the  im- 
prisoned Ferdinand,  is  an  echo  of  that  in  which  the 
lord  protector  in  The  Coronation  hails  the  impris- 
oned Seleucus-Leonatus;  the  relation  of  the  tricky 
captain  to  the  gullible  citizens  in  the  subplot  (which 
I  have  not  attempted  to  describe)  recalls  the  relation 
of  Captain  Mauritio  to  the  foolish  Fabio  in  The 
Young  Admiral;  the  scene  in  which  the  queen,  to  woo 
Tiberio  (the  disguised  Rosania),  assumes  the  part 
of  the  man  and  requires  Tiberio  to  play  the  maid, 
might  be  accounted  a  new  version  of  the  scene  in  As 
You  Like  It,  in  which  Rosalind,  disguised  as  a  man, 
requires  Orlando  to  address  her  as  a  woman.1  In- 
deed, the  entire  foundation  of  The  Doubtful  Heir — 
a  prince  concealed  in  infancy  and  a  maiden  playing 
she-page  to  her  lover — is  almost  as  old  as  is  romance 
itself :  all  this  we  grant.  But  above  this  seeming  lack 
of  inventiveness  stand  out  two  facts :  In  the  first  place, 
Shirley,  like  Shakspere,  was  shrewd  enough,  on  find- 
ing an  effective  situation,  to  repeat  it  and  to  improve 
upon  it:  as  Shakspere,  having  attempted  to  portray 
an  inconstant  lover  in  his  Proteus  of  Two  Gentlemen 
of  Verona,  repeated  the  figure  in  his  Lysander  of  A 
Midsummer  Night's  Dream  and  bettered  it  by  mak- 

1  Shakspere,  As  You  Like  It,  IV,  i. 

D25] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

ing  it  more  reasonable— if  fairy  intervention  can  be 
accepted  as  a  reason — so  Shirley,  having  made  the 
lover  of  Polidora  marry  Sophia  in  The  Coronation 
of  1635,  makes  the  lover  of  Rosania  marry  Olivia 
in  The  Doubtful  Heir  of  1640,  and,  in  repeating  the 
figure,  betters  it  by  supplying  better  motivation.  In 
the  second  place,  Shirley  in  his  management  of  plot 
has  learned  to  obtain  a  maximum  of  effect  with  a 
minimum  of  effort:  to  concentrate  more  complica- 
tions upon  fewer  dramatis  persona.  The  story  for 
which,  in  The  Coronation,  he  used  six  major  figures, 
he  retold  five  years  later  in  The  Doubtful  Heir  with 
four.  He  condensed  the  lord  protector  and  his  son 
into  the  single  figure  of  the  Prince  of  Arragon;  he 
condensed  Seleucus-Leonatus  and  Arcadius-Deme- 
trius  into  the  single  figure  of  King  Ferdinand;  he 
retained  Sophia  in  Olivia,  Polidora  in  Rosania;  and 
to  the  latter  he  added  the  part  of  the  faithful  maiden 
playing  page  to  a  seemingly  unfaithful  lover.  Such 
is  the  dramatic  economy  of  Shirley:  another  excellent 
illustration  of  his  mastery  of  technique. 

As  The  Doubtful  Heir  is  typical  Fletcherian  ro- 
mance in  its  reliance  upon  unexpected  situations  and 
upon  skilful  management  of  plot,  so  is  it  typical  in 
the  limitation  and  nature  of  its  characterization. 
The  character-drawing  in  this  play  is  not  psychologi- 
cally profound;  it  makes  slight  attempt  to  portray 

C326] 


THE  DOUBTFUL   HEIR 

character-development;  it  realizes  the  several  dra- 
matis persona  only  so  far  as  they  are  essential  to  the 
story  or  to  the  scene  of  the  moment;  it  accounts  itself 
merely  a  means,  not  an  end  in  itself.  Rosania  and 
Ferdinand  and  the  Prince  of  Arragon,  from  prologue 
to  epilogue,  remain  the  same;  they  suffer,  but  they 
learn  little  from  their  sufferings;  they  are  no  older 
for  their  sad  experience.  As  for  the  queen,  with  her 
startling  change  of  passion  from  the  prince  to  the  pre- 
tender, from  the  pretender  to  the  pretender's  page, 
she  is  at  least  consistent  in  her  inconsistency;  but  her 
first  change  is  frankly  without  sufficient  motive,  and 
her  return  to  her  first  love  is  the  result  of  his  victory, 
not  of  her  volition.  In  all  four  major  figures,  the 
characterization  is  adequate  and  pleasing,  but  it  is 
nothing  more.  To  make  it  more  would  be  to  remove 
the  play  from  the  company  of  Fletcherian  romance 
to— or  at  least  toward— the  society  of  Shaksperian 
tragicomedy;  to  shift  the  interest  from  episode  to 
character. 

And  finally  in  language,  as  in  character  and  plot, 
Shirley  in  The  Doubtful  Heir  follows  in  the  foot- 
steps of  his  master  Fletcher.  Not  strength  but  sweet- 
ness—of thought  and  of  expression— is  the  character- 
istic quality  of  the  more  poetic  passages  in  Shirley. 
In  illustration,  I  quote  some  portions  of  the  prison- 
scene  in  which  Ferdinand  is  first  hailed  as  king.   My 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

omissions   are  chiefly  passages  of  explanation,   not 
vital  to  my  present  purpose: 

Ferdinand.     I  have  no  heart  to  think  of  anything 
But  my  Rosania;  all  devotion, 
When  I  remember  her,  flies  off,  and  leaves 
My  soul  no  contemplation  but  her  safety. 
They  were  too  cruel  to  divide  us.    Night 
Itself  looks  now  more  black  by  this  dim  taper. 
Rosania's  eyes  would  brighten  all;  but  they, 
Weigh'd  down  with  sleep  and  sorrow,  are  perhaps 
At  rest :  a  thousand  angels  watch  about  them ! 
And  let  some  one  whose  office  is  to  wait 
On  harmless  love,  present  me  to  her  dreams. 
Oh  let  her  hear  me  often  call  upon  her, 
As  I  am  led  to  death  !  and  when  the  stroke 
Divides  me  from  myself  and  from  the  world, 
My  heart  shall  pay  her  tribute,  and  my  blood 
Do  miracles,  when  every  crimson  drop 
My  body  bleeds  shall  not  in  vain  be  wept, 
But  fall  into  some  letter  of  her  name, 
To  keep  alive  our  story. — What  lights  are  these? 
This  place  sure  is  not  wont  to  be  thus  visited. 
They  are  spirits.    Ha  !  yet  if  I  have  memory, 
Those  faces  were  but  late  familiar  to  me. 
What  mockery  is  this?    If  you  be  substances 
Of  things  I  know,  go  tell  the  tyrant  queen 
She  might  allow  me  death  without  this  scorn, 
This  jeering  anti-masque. 

Omnes.  Long  live  the  king! 

Ferd.     What  king? 

C328] 


THE  DOUBTFUL   HEIR 

Omnes.  Long  live  Ferdinand,  king  of 

Murcia ! 

Ferd.     A  dream,  a  golden  dream  !    What  fancies  wait 
Upon  our  sleep !  and  yet  I  wake;  they  are 
Apparitions;  I'll  shut  my  eyes,  and  lose  them. 
They  will  not  vanish.     Leandro,  Rodriguez,  Ernesto? 

Omnes.     All  your  subjects. 

Leandro.     Collect  your  scatter'd  thoughts,  my  lord, 
and  be 
Assured,  we  now  pay  real  duties  to  you ; 
You  are  our  king,  and  must  be.   .   .   . 

Ferd.      I  may  command  you  then.    Fetch  me  Rosania  ; 
I'll  be  no  king  without  her.    Do  not  stay 
To  hear  how  much  I  love  her  'bove  the  crown, 
And  all  the  glories  wait  upon  it:  she 
That  was  my  page,  my  fellow  prisoner, 
Rosania ! 

'Tis  that  name,  next  to  heaven,  I  bow  to. 
Good  my  lord,  follow  him ;  and  if  she  be 
Awake,  oh  drop  it  gently  by  degrees 
(The  joy  is  mighty,  she  a  sad  weak  virgin) 
That  I  shall  live  to  make  her  queen.   .   .   . 
She  comes,  she  comes !   .   .   . 
See  how  the  day  that  made 
Haste  to  salute  Rosania,  and  to  wait 
Upon  thy  triumph,  blushes  like  a  maid 
When  she  is  told  she  is  in  love !  the  stars 
Are  gone  to  tell  the  other  world  thy  beauty, 
Till  now  eclips'd  with  sorrow,  hath  thrown  off 

D29] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

The  imprisoning  veil,  and  shines  above  their 

brightness.  .   .   . 
Come,  my  Rosania,  time  hath  turn'd  again 
Our  glass,  and  his  keen  scythe  this  comfort  brings: 
It  cuts  no  sceptres  down,  but  to  make  kings.2 

This  poetic  element  which  we  have  just  noted  in 
The  Doubtful  Heir  appears  again  in  The  Imposture, 
licensed  five  months  later,  November  10,  1640.  In 
The  Imposture,  we  observe  as  well  the  emphasis 
upon  plot  and  situation  rather  than  upon  character. 
The  Imposture,  however,  differs  from  The  Doubtful 
Heir  in  that  the  action  springs  from  the  deliberate 
initiative  of  the  dramatis  persona  rather  than  from 
chance,  and  that  the  interest,  scene  by  scene,  results 
not  so  much  from  surprise  as  from  the  struggle  be- 
tween contending  characters.  In  short,  The  Doubt- 
ful Heir  is  merely  a  romance;  The  Imposture  is  a 
comedy  of  romantic  intrigue. 

The  plot  of  The  Imposture  centers  about  a  struggle 
between  Flaviano,  favorite  of  the  Duke  of  Mantua, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  duke's  son  and  daughter  on 
the  other,  concerning  the  proposed  marriage  of  the 
latter  to  Prince  Leonato  of  Ferrara.  Lured  by  a 
promise  of  Fioretta's  hand,  the  Prince  of  Ferrara 
has  brought  his  army  to  the  aid  of  Mantua.  Flavi- 
ano, however,  himself  aspires  to  the  hand  of  Fioretta; 

2  The  Doubtful  Heir,  v,  ii;  Works,  IV,  342-346. 

C330] 


THE  IMPOSTURE 

and  therefore,  taking  advantage  of  the  fact  that  her 
brother,  Honorio,  lies  wounded,  he  persuades  the 
duke  that  the  Prince  of  Ferrara  is  a  wild  young 
man,  morally  unfit  to  marry  Fioretta;  removes  Fio- 
retta  to  a  convent,  and  thence,  secretly,  to  his  mother's 
country  house;  and  finally  brings  word  to  the  expec- 
tant prince  that  Fioretta  has  vowed  to  remain  in  the 
convent  for  a  year — to  the  postponement  of  the  wed- 
ding. Prince  Leonato,  indignant  at  what  he  believes 
to  be  the  perfidy  of  the  duke,  demands  a  personal 
interview  with  Fioretta.  This  interview  they  do  not 
dare  deny;  but  Flaviano,  with  the  duke's  consent, 
plots  to  provide  a  substitute  for  Fioretta.  In  the  con- 
vent is  a  novice,  Juliana,  Flaviano's  cast-off  mistress; 
and  her  he  persuades  to  play  Fioretta's  part.  He  in- 
structs her  even  to  wed  Prince  Leonato ;  but  the  duke, 
unwilling  to  abuse  Ferrara  thus,  secretly  commands 
Juliana  to  insist  on  the  year's  postponement  of  the 
marriage  as  before  proposed.  When  the  Prince  of 
Ferrara  comes  to  her  at  the  convent,  she  pretends  obe- 
dience to  the  duke's  command.  The  prince,  however, 
finds  in  her  reply  a  hint  that  she  is  not  unwilling  to 
be  carried  off  by  force.  With  a  picked  company, 
therefore,  he  breaks  into  the  convent,  and  bears  off 
Juliana — the  counterfeit  Fioretta — as  his  bride-to-be. 
The  scene  now  changes  to  Ferrara,  whither,  sus- 
picious of  Flaviano's  treatment,  the  real  Fioretta  has 

[330 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

come  under  an  assumed  name,  to  become,  as  it  hap- 
pens, the  guest  of  Prince  Leonato's  sister,  Donabella. 
Hither  also  has  come  Honorio,  to  avenge  what  he 
supposes  to  have  been  the  rape  of  his  sister  Fioretta. 
As  he  and  Prince  Leonato  are  about  to  fight,  Juliana 
and  the  princess  Donabella  rush  between  their 
swords.  Confronted  by  Honorio,  Juliana  so  amazes 
him  that  she  gains  his  temporary  silence  and  so  saves 
the  situation.  Left  alone,  Honorio  is  presently  found 
and  welcomed  by  his  sister  Fioretta.  Juliana,  mean- 
while, resolves  on  self-destruction.  She  tells  the 
prince  that  she  is  not  Fioretta,  but  a  noble  virgin 
compelled  by  the  Duke  of  Mantua  to  personate  his 
daughter.  That  she  is  the  cast-off  mistress  of  Fla- 
viano,  she  neglects  to  state;  she  stresses  rather  the 
fact  that  it  was  against  her  will  that  the  prince  bore 
her  from  the  convent.  At  this  moment,  Honorio— 
whom  Flaviano  has  followed  from  Mantua  that  he 
may  slay  him — breaks  in  upon  the  prince  and  Juliana 
with  Flaviano  prisoner.  Honorio  starts  to  tell  Prince 
Leonato  all  of  Flaviano's  treachery.  The  prince,  be- 
lieving that  Juliana's  tale  is  all,  cuts  Honorio  short; 
tells  him  that  he  will  hear  nothing  from  him ;  and  de- 
clares his  purpose  to  wed  the  noble  virgin  (Juliana) 
and  to  make  war  on  Mantua  for  the  duke's  deceit: 

Leonato.  ...  I  know  all  the  business, 
And  am  resolved  in  my  revenge.— Juliana, 

C332] 


THE  IMPOSTURE 

Sweet  suffering  maid,  dry  thy  fair  eyes;  'tis  I 
Must  make  thee  satisfaction.    I  thus, 
By  thy  own  name,  receive  thee  to  my  bosom.— 
But  you,  that  practis'd  cunning,  shall,  ere  time 
Contract  the  age  of  one  pale  moon,  behold 
The  country  I  preserv'd,  a  heap  of  ruins.   .   .   . 

Honorio.      Do  you  know 
Whom  you  embrace?    Flaviano  has  confess'd 
Himself  the  traitor,  and  the  black  contriver 
Of  all  this  mischief.    Leonato,  hear  me, 
Or  by  thy  father,  newly  fall'n  to  ashes, 
I  shall  repent  I  had  an  honourable 
Thought  of  thee.  —Flaviano  !  — Madam  witchcraft! 
My  rage  will  strangle  my  discourse ;  my  soul 
Is  leaping  forth  to  be  reveng'd  upon 
That  devil. — Prince,  keep  off;  his  very  breath 
Will  stifle  thee,  and  damn  thy  honour  to 
All  ages.    Fioretta's  now  in  court. 

Flav.     Ha  !  in  the  court  ? 

Leo.  This  is  some  new  device. 

Hon.     I  charge  thee,  by  thy  blood,  throw  off  these 
harpies, 
And  do  my  sister  justice,  whom  their  treason 
Hath  made  a  scorn.    That  minute  she  usurps 
Her  name  of  bride,  I  shall  forget  the  altar 
And  turn  myself  the  priest,  with  all  your  blood 
To  make  a  purging  sacrifice. 

Leo.  If,  when  we 

Receive  our  rites,  thou  dost  but  frown,  or  whisper 
To  interrupt  our  ceremony,  I 

[333] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Will  make  thee  hold  the  tapers,  while  the  priest 

Performs  the  holy  office.    Tell  thy  sister 

Here  I  bestow  what  you  have  made  me  forfeit. 

Present  her  to  the  nunnery,  and  counsel 

Thy  ignoble  father,  when  I  next  see  Mantua, 

To  be  asleep  in's  coffin,  and  his  vault 

Deep,  and  thick  ribb'd  with  marble :  my  noise  else 

Will  shake  his  dust.    Thy  youth  finds  mercy  yet; 

Take  the  next  whirlwind,  and  remove —    Our  guard !  — 

Petronio,  we  confine  him  to  your  house.   .   .   .    [Exeunt.]3 

For  the  moment,  the  intrigues  of  Flaviano  seem 
to  triumph,  but  only  for  the  moment.  Flaviano's  con- 
federate, Claudio,  betrays  him  to  the  prince.  The 
prince  accuses  Juliana;  she  begs  for  mercy;  and  he 
casts  her  off.  The  Duke  of  Mantua  arrives  to  save 
his  son.  At  the  same  moment  enter  Fioretta,  Juliana, 
and  the  princess  Donabella.  The  old  duke  recognizes 
his  daughter.  The  princess— who,  in  her  love  for 
Honorio,  has  mistaken  his  sister  Fioretta  for  her  rival 
—  runs  joyously  to  find  him.  The  prince,  likewise 
discovering  the  identity  of  Mantua's  daughter,  in- 
stantly resolves  to  have  her  for  his  bride.  To  Hono- 
rio he  gives  his  sister  Donabella.  To  a  nunnery  he 
dismisses  Juliana;  to  exile,  the  intriguing  Flaviano. 

This  extended  outline  and  the  quoted  scene  have 
given,  I  trust,  an  adequate  idea  of  The  Imposture:  a 

3  The  Imposture,  iv,  v;  Works,  v,  244-245. 

[334  ] 


THE  IMPOSTURE 

romantic  play  characterized,  both  scene  by  scene  and 
as  a  whole,  by  struggle  and  intrigue  and  poetic  pas- 
sion. The  subplot,  which  presents  a  coward  son,  a 
masking  mother,  and  a  drinking-bout,  need  not  de- 
tain us.  But  we  must  not  dismiss  the  play  without 
quoting  the  eight-line  epilogue  spoken  by  Juliana 
—  an  epilogue  which,  in  its  contrast  between  the  real 
character  of  the  actor  and  the  part  he  plays,  possesses 
a  humor  not  unlike  that  of  the  more  famous  epilogue 
which  Dryden  wrote  for  that  "little  harmless  devil," 
Nell  Gwyn.4  Fully  to  appreciate  the  fun,  we  must 
recall,  first,  that  The  Imposture  was  acted  by  the 
King's  men  at  the  private  house  in  Black  Fryers,  and, 
second,  that  the  part  of  Juliana— as  of  the  other  wo- 
men in  the  cast— was  played  by  a  man. 

Epilogue,  spoken  by  JULIANA. 

Now  the  play's  done,  I  will  confess  to  you, 
And  will  not  doubt  but  you'll  absolve  me  too; 
There  is  a  mystery;  let  it  not  go  far, 
For  this  confession  is  auricular: 
I  am  sent  among  the  nuns,  to  fast  and  pray, 
And  suffer  piteous  penance ;  ha,  ha,  ha  ! 
They  could  no  better  way  please  my  desires: 
I  am  no  nun— but  one  of  the  Black  Friars.6 

4  Dryden,  Epilogue  to  Tyrannic  Love. 

5  Epilogue  to  The  Imposture,  in  Works,  v,  269. 

[335] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Six  months  after  the  licensing  of  The  Imposture, 
appeared  The  Politique  Father,  licensed  May  26, 
1 64 1.  The  grounds  for  identifying  this  with  the  play 
published  as  The  Brothers  in  1652,  I  have  presented 
in  an  earlier  chapter.  If  the  latter  be  indeed  The 
Politique  Father,  and  not  the  play  licensed  as  The 
Brothers  in  1626,  then  we  must  account  it  not  one  of 
the  earliest  but  the  very  last  of  Shirley's  comedies  of 
manners.  Its  scene  and  characters  are  nominally 
Spanish;  but  it  affords  no  further  grounds  for  not 
accounting  it  a  comedy  of  London  life. 

If  this  play  published  as  The  Brothers  in  1652  be, 
as  we  have  concluded,  The  Politique  Father  of  1641, 
then  the  character  from  whom  it  first  was  named  is 
Don  Ramyres,  the  father  of  Fernando  and  Fran- 
cisco.6 This  politic  father  desires  to  marry  his 
eldest  son  and  heir,  Fernando,  to  Jacinto,  daughter 
of  the  rich  Don  Carlos.  To  this  plan,  Ramyres  gains 
the  seeming  acquiescence  of  Don  Carlos;  but  when 
he  brings  Fernando  for  the  wooing,  the  ungrateful 
heir  takes  the  opportunity  to  woo  Jacinta's  penniless 
cousin  Felisarda,  while  the  younger  brother  pursues 
a  long-standing  love-affair  with  rich  Jacinta.  When 
Fernando,  however,  on  being  cross-questioned  by 
Ramyres,  admits  his  love  for  Felisarda  and  his  bro- 

6  That  Francisco,  in  the  opening  scene  (Works,  I,  195),  speaks  of 
Don  (Carlos  as  "a  provident  father,"  has  been  cited  in  support  of  a 
different  interpretation.     Fleay,  English  Drama,  11,  246. 

[336] 


THE  POLITIQUE   FATHER    (THE  BROTHERS) 

ther's  standing  with  the  heiress,  the  politic  father, 
in  a  seeming  rage,  applauds  the  thriftiness  of  his 
younger  son  and  heaps  disinheritance  and  a  father's 
curse  upon  the  elder.  To  Francisco  he  immediately 
bequeaths  his  wealth  to  assure  acceptability  with 
Jacinta's  father;  and  forthwith  Ramyres  politicly 
dies  that  the  inheritance  may  take  effect.  The  elder 
son  hears  that  his  father  has  been  privately  entombed 
within  a  convent,  but  that  before  his  death  he  so  far 
relented  as  to  send  his  blessing  to  his  sometime  heir. 
Meanwhile,  Don  Carlos,  the  father  of  Jacinta,  has 
cast  out  Felisarda  from  his  household,  and  has  ar- 
ranged to  marry  Jacinta  to  a  wealthy  and  high-born 
libertine,  Don  Pedro.  As  Felisarda  is  returning  to 
her  father's  house,  she  is  waylaid  by  Don  Pedro,  and 
from  him  is  rescued  only  by  the  timely  appearance 
of  Fernando.  Despite  Fernando's  penniless  condi- 
tion, Felisarda  would  gladly  marry  him;  but  he  is 
unwilling  to  accept  such  a  sacrifice— to  betray  her  to 
greater  poverty.  As  for  Jacinta,  the  heiress,  who  is 
being  forced  into  marriage  with  Don  Pedro,  she 
elopes  with  Francisco  on  her  wedding  morn;  and, 
when  her  father  learns  of  the  true  character  of  Don 
Pedro  and  of  the  inheritance  of  Francisco,  he  is  easily 
reconciled  to  the  elopement.  Then,  from  the  con- 
cealment in  the  convent,  appears  the  politic  father, 
Don  Ramyres.     By  his  pretended  death,  he  has  se- 

[337] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

cured  the  marriage  of  Francisco  to  the  heiress,  and 
has  tested  "Fernando's  piety  and  his  mistress'  virtue.1' 
He  restores  his  elder  son  to  fortune,  and  marries  him 
to  Felisarda. 

Around  this  major  plot  are  grouped  several  inter- 
esting lesser  characters  and  actions.  There  is  the 
grasping  Carlos,  father  of  Jacinta,  who  forbids  the 
attendance  of  the  younger  brother  for  his  lack  of  for- 
tune, but  who  welcomes  successively  the  suit  of 
Alberto,  of  Fernando,  and  of  Don  Pedro,  each 
wealthier  than  his  predecessor.  There  is  the  engag- 
ing and  irrepressible  young  scapegrace,  Luys,  Ja- 
cinta's  brother,  who,  in  return  for  commending  them 
to  his  sister,  borrows  money  from  her  suitors,  and 
who  finally  secures  uncounted  money  from  his  father 
on  pretext  that  he  has  slain  Alberto  and  must  flee  the 
country.  There  is  the  device  by  which  Jacinta,  with 
the  connivance  of  the  noble  widow  Estefania,  escapes 
from  Don  Pedro  on  her  wedding  morn— a  device  not 
unlike  that  by  which  Violetta  in  The  Witty  Fair 
One,  with  the  connivance  of  her  maid,  escapes  from 
marriage  with  Sir  Nicholas.  And,  finally,  there  is 
the  high-born  libertine  Don  Pedro,  who  makes  love, 
more  or  less  honorable,  to  Jacinta,  to  Felisarda,  and 
to  Estefania,  only  to  find  at  the  last  that  Jacinta  is 
married  to  Francisco,  that  Felisarda  is  safely  alii- 


THE  POLITIQUE   FATHER    (THE   BROTHERS) 

anced  to  Fernando,  and  that  Estefania  is  wedded  to 
Alberto. 

Although  The  Politique  Father  (The  Brothers  of 
1652)  is  primarily  a  comedy  of  London  life  and  man- 
ners, thinly  disguised  with  Spanish  names  and  set- 
ting, yet  it  differs  materially  from  the  well-nigh 
Middletonian  realism  of  Shirley's  other  late  realistic 
comedy,  The  Constant  Maid.  This  difference  results 
largely  from  the  almost  romantic  treatment  of  the 
fortunes  of  the  lovers  in  the  major  plot,  and  from  the 
poetic  quality  of  many  passages  in  its  more  important 
scenes.  Of  this  romantic  treatment  and  poetic  qual- 
ity, the  following  extracts  from  the  conclusion  of 
Act  IV,  scene  v,  shall  be  example.  It  is  the  parting 
of  Fernando  and  Felisarda: 

Fel.      Shall  I  want  fortitude  to  bid  him  welcome?— 
Sir,  If  you  think  there  is  a  heart  alive 
That  can  be  grateful,  and  with  humble  thought 
And  prayers  reward  your  piety,  despise  not 
The  offer  of  it  here.    You  have  not  cast 
Your  bounty  on  a  rock,  while  the  seeds  thrive 
Where  you  did  place  your  charity.     My  joy 
May  seem  ill  dress'd  to  come  like  sorrow  thus; 
But  you  may  see  through  every  tear,  and  find 
My  eyes  meant  innocence  and  your  hearty  welcome. 

Fer.     Who  did  prepare  thee,  Felisarda,  thus 
To  entertain  me  weeping?    Sure  our  souls 
Meet  and  converse,  and  we  not  know't.    There  is 

[33911 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Such  beauty  in  that  watery  circle,  I 

Am  fearful  to  come  near,  and  breathe  a  kiss 

Upon  thy  cheek,  lest  I  pollute  that  crystal. 

And  yet  I  must  salute  thee ;  and  I  dare, 

With  one  warm  sigh,  meet  and  dry  up  this  sorrow 

But  first,  I  have  a  story  to  deliver, 

A  tale  will  make  thee  sad,  but  I  must  tell  it : 

There  is  one  dead  that  loved  thee  not,   .   .   .  my 

father,   .   .  . 
Alas!  I  am  no  more  Fernando;  there 
Is  nothing  but  the  empty  name  of  him 
That  did  betray  thee.    Place  a  guard  about 
Thy  heart  betime;  I  am  not  worth  this  sweetness. 

Fel.      Did  not  Fernando  speak  all  this?  alas, 
He  knew  that  I  was  poor  before,  and  needed  not 
Despise  me  now  for  that. 

Fer.  Desert  me,  goodness, 

When  I  upbraid  thy  wants.    'Tis  I  am  poor; 
For  I  have  not  a  stock  in  all  the  world 
Of  so  much  dust  as  would  contrive  one  narrow 
Cabin  to  shroud  a  worm.    My  dying  father 
Hath  given  away  my  birthright  to  Francisco; 
I'm  disinherited,  thrown  out  of  all, 
But  the  small  earth  I  borrow  thus  to  walk  on; 
And,  having  nothing  left,  I  come  to  kiss  thee, 
And  take  my  everlasting  leave  of  thee.   .   .   . 

Fel.     'Tis  .  .  .  wealth  first  taught  us  art  to 
surfeit  by: 
Nature  is  wise,  not  costly,  and  will  spread 

[340  n 


THE  POLITIQUE   FATHER    (THE  BROTHERS) 

A  table  for  us  in  the  wilderness; 

And  the  kind  earth  keep  us  alive  and  healthful, 

With  what  our  bosom  doth  invite  us  to. 

The  brooks,  not  there  suspected,  as  the  wine 

That  sometime  princes  quaff,  are  all  transparent, 

And  with  their  pretty  murmurs  call  to  taste  them. 

In  every  tree  a  chorister  to  sing 

Health  to  our  loves;  our  lives  shall  there  be  free 

As  the  first  knowledge  was  from  sin,  and  all 

Our  dreams  as  innocent. 

Fer.  Oh,  Felisarda! 

If  thou  didst  own  less  virtue  I  might  prove 
Unkind,  and  marry  thee;  but  being  so  rich 
In  goodness,  it  becomes  me  not  to  bring 
One  that  is  poor  in  every  worth,  to  waste 
So  excellent  a  dower.    Be  free,  and  meet 
One  that  hath  wealth  to  cherish  it;  I  shall 
Undo  thee  quite.    But  pray  for  me,  as  I, 
That  thou  mayst  change  for  a  more  happy  bridegroom. 
I  dare  as  soon  be  guilty  of  my  death 
As  make  thee  miserable  by  expecting  me. 
Farewell !  and  do  not  wrong  my  soul,  to  think 
That  any  storm  could  separate  us  two, 
But  that  I  have  no  fortune  now  to  serve  thee. 

Fel.     This  will  be  no  exception,  sir,  I  hope. 
When  we  are  both  dead,  yet  our  bodies  may 
Be  cold,  and  strangers  in  the  winding  sheet, 
We  shall  be  married  when  our  spirits  meet.       [Exeunt.]7 

"  The  Brothers,  iv,  v;  Works,  I,  248-252. 

C34I] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Of  this  poetic  element  in  The  Brothers  of  1652,  an- 
other familiar  example  is  the  passage  quoted  by 
Farmer  in  his  Essay  on  the  Learning  of  Shakespeare, 
1766,  the  description  of  the  maid  at  prayers.8 

Of  the  three  plays  considered  in  this  chapter,  two 
—  The  Doubtful  Heir  and  The  Imposture — are  to  be 
ranked  among  Shirley's  most  successful  contributions 
to  the  romantic  school.  In  neither  is  the  character- 
ization notable— nor  is  this  to  be  expected  in  plays 
following  so  closely  in  the  romantic,  as  distinguished 
from  the  realistic,  style  of  Fletcher.  But  The  Impos- 
ture is  delightful  for  skilful  intrigue  and  romantic 
atmosphere;  and  The  Doubtful  Heir,  passionate, 
swift,  astounding  in  surprise  upon  surprise,  is  a 
Fletcherian  dramatic  romance  of  highest  quality. 
The  Brothers  of  1652,  which  we  have  identified  with 
the  play  licensed  as  The  Politique  Father,  1641,  is  a 
comedy  of  manners  of  but  minor  interest— whether 
we  compare  it  with  the  romantic  plays  which  are  its 

8  "Her  eye  did  seem  to  labour  with  a  tear 
Which  suddenly  took  birth,  but,  overweigh'd 
With  its  own  swelling,  dropp'd  upon  her  bosom, 
Which,  by  reflection  of  her  light,  appear'd 
As  nature  meant  her  sorrow  for  an  ornament. 
After,  her  looks  grew  cheerful;  and  I  saw 
A  smile  shoot  graceful  upward  from  her  eyes, 
As  if  they  had  gain'd  a  victory  o'er  grief; 
And  with  it  many  beams  twisted  themselves, 
Upon  whose  golden  threads  the  angels  walk 
To  and  again  from  heaven." 

The  Brothers,  I,  i;  Works,  I,  202. 

[342] 


THE   POLITIQUE   FATHER    (THE  BROTHERS) 

nearest  neighbors,  or  with  the  realistic  plays  of  Shir- 
ley's first  and  second  periods.  Even  The  Brothers, 
however,  contains  much  pleasing  verse.  It  is  the 
poetical  element  that  links  this  play  not  only  with 
The  Doubtful  Heir  and  The  Imposture,  but  also 
with  the  three  plays  still  to  be  discussed. 


[343  ] 


CHAPTER  XVII 
THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONTINUED 

THE  CARDINAL 

FOREMOST  among  the  later  plays  of  Shir- 
ley, and  among  the  greatest  that  Shirley 
ever  wrote,  is  The  Cardinal,  licensed  No- 
vember 25,  1 641.  In  plot,  this  romantic  tragedy  is 
a  struggle  between  the  duchess  Rosaura  on  the-  one 
hand  and  the  cardinal  on  the  other:  the  duchess  be- 
ing supported  by  a  colonel  named  Hernando,  and  the 
cardinal  being  in  alliance  with  his  nephew  Don 
Columbo.  Opening  in  a  struggle  concerning  the 
marriage  of  the  duchess,  the  play  concludes  as  a 
struggle  for  revenge. 

The  cardinal,  for  the  strengthening  of  his  own 
power,  has  persuaded  the  king  to  bestow  the  hand 
of  the  duchess  upon  Don  Columbo.  While  Columbo 
is  absent  defending  the  kingdom  against  Arragon, 
the  duchess  writes  him,  demanding  her  release.  Co- 
lumbo, supposing  it  but  a  hint  to  hasten  home,  gives 
her  her  freedom.  The  duchess  shows  his  letter  to  the 
king;  and,  on  the  strength  of  it,  she  secures  the  king's 
assent  to  her  marriage  with  her  long-time  lover, 
Count  d'Alvarez.    Columbo  returns  upon  their  wed- 

C344] 


THE  CARDINAL 

ding  night,  stabs  with  his  own  hand  Count  d'Alvarez, 
and  stays  to  justify  his  crime.  His  victory  over  Arra- 
gon  pleads  in  his  behalf;  and  this,  by  the  cardinal's 
influence,  wipes  out  all  memory  of  the  assassination. 
Columbo  forces  himself  upon  the  duchess,  and  vows 
that,  should  she  ever  think  to  wed  again,  he  will  slay 
the  next  bridegroom  as  he  has  the  last. 

With  this,  the  duchess  accepts  as  her  champion  one 
Hernando,  a  colonel  who  has  also  personal  grounds 
for  hating  both  Columbo  and  the  cardinal.  In  the 
duel  that  follows,  Hernando  slays  Columbo.  The 
duchess,  meanwhile,  seemingly  insane,  is  made  the 
cardinal's  ward.  He  resolves  to  take  revenge  upon 
her  by  violating  and  then  poisoning  her.  When, 
however,  he  attempts  assault  upon  her,  Hernando, 
concealed  behind  the  arras,  rushes  to  her  rescue,  stabs 
the  cardinal,  and  then  stabs  himself  and  dies.  To  the 
king  and  court,  the  wounded  cardinal  confesses  his 
treachery;  and,  in  token  of  his  penitence,  he  begs  the 
duchess  to  accept  an  antidote  for  a  poison  which,  he 
alleges,  he  administered  to  her  at  supper.  In  token 
of  his  good  faith,  he  takes  a  portion  of  the  antidote 
before  her.  She  drinks,  and  finds  it  poison.  He 
rejoices  in  the  success  of  his  deceit— and  then  learns 
that  his  own  wound  was  not  mortal.  The  cardinal 
and  the  duchess  die  together.  Both  have  their  re- 
venge. 

£34511 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Upon  and  around  this  central  story,  Shirley  has 
grouped  a  succession  of  strong  and  brilliant  scenes. 
The  departure  of  Columbo  and  the  immediate  meet- 
ing of  d' Alvarez  and  the  duchess;1  the  council  of 
war,  with  Columbo's  quarrel  with  Hernando,  his 
receipt  of  the  duchess's  letter,  and  his  answer;2  her 
successful  appeal  to  the  king  and  resulting  quarrel 
with  the  cardinal;3  the  celebration  of  the  duchess's 
wedding  to  d'Alvarez,  the  "revels"  by  the  unknown 
maskers,  their  murder  of  d'Alvarez,  the  unmasking 
of  Columbo,  his  bold  confession  and  defiance,  and 
the  duchess's  cry  for  justice;4  her  subsequent  meet- 
ings with  Columbo,  with  Hernando,  and  with  the 
cardinal;5  the  duel  between  Hernando  and  Columbo 
with  their  respective  seconds,  from  which  Hernando 
is  the  sole  survivor ; 6  the  visit  of  Hernando  and  of  the 
cardinal  to  the  supposedly  insane  duchess,  and  the 
resulting  deaths  of  all  three:7  all  these  scenes  tell 
swiftly  and  vividly  the  story  from  which  the  remain- 
ing scenes— such  as  the  comic  episode  of  the  servants 
dressing  for  the  play,  and  the  hinted  amours  of  Co- 
lumbo and  Celinda— are  but  slight  digressions.  As 
a  combination  of  emotional  unity  in  each  individual 
scene  with  intellectual  unity  in  the  play  taken  as  a 

1  The  Cardinal,  I,  ii.                              5  Ibid.,  IV,  ii. 

2  Ibid.,  ii,  i.  8  Ibid.,  IV,  iii. 

3  Ibid.,  II,  iii.  7  Ibid.,  v,  iii. 
*  Ibid.,  Ill,  ii. 

[346] 


THE  CARDINAL 

whole,   The  Cardinal  stands   first  among  Shirley's 
tragedies. 

The  Cardinal  is  notable,  however,  not  solely  for 
management  of  plot  and  for  the  high  effectiveness  of 
particular  scenes;  it  is  notable  also  for  the  interest  of 
its  characters.  The  duchess,  Columbo,  Hernando, 
and  the  cardinal :  each  is  a  powerful  personality,  pow- 
erfully conceived ;  each  different  from  the  others,  and 
each  finely  delineated. 

Most  difficult  of  delineation  was  the  character  of 
the  duchess  Rosaura.  Her,  Shirley  must  present  as 
guilty  of  the  initial  overt  act  that  divorced  her  from 
her  affianced  lover,  married  her  to  that  lover's  rival, 
and  led  on  to  the  assassination  of  d'Alvarez,  the  death 
of  Columbo  and  two  others  in  the  resulting  duel,  the 
suicide  of  Hernando,  and  the  death  by  poison  of  the 
cardinal  and  herself;  and  yet  Shirley  must  so  present 
the  duchess  that,  from  first  to  last,  our  sympathy  shall 
be  with  her— the  all  but  helpless  soul  struggling  for 
life  amid  the  cardinal's  toils.  This  sympathy,  Shir- 
ley skilfully  builds  up  from  scene  to  scene:  he  shows 
us  how  the  anger  of  the  lords  runs  high  against  the 
cardinal;  how  the  love  of  the  duchess  for  d'Alvarez 
antedated  her  forced  alliance  with  the  cardinal's 
nephew,  Don  Columbo;  how,  against  the  united 
power  of  the  mighty  general,  the  mightier  cardinal, 
and  the  pliant  king,  naught  could  avail  the  duchess 

[347] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

but  a  woman's  stratagem ;  how,  widowed  on  her  wed- 
ding night,  she  cried  in  vain  for  justice  against  the 
murderer  of  her  lord;  how  Columbo,  more  firm  than 
ever  in  the  king's  support,  drove  her,  by  his  threats, 
to  desperation,  and  forced  upon  her,  not  for  revenge 
or  justice  only,  but  even  for  self-preservation,  her 
alliance  with  Hernando  for  the  death  of  Columbo 
and  the  cardinal.  Perhaps  the  finest  touch  — coming  as 
it  does  between  the  death  of  Columbo  in  the  duel  and 
that  of  the  cardinal  by  his  own  poison — is  the  scene  in 
which  the  duchess,  seemingly  insane,  receives  her 
champion,  Hernando: 

Hernando.     Dear  madam,  do  not  weep. 

Duchess.  You're  very  welcome. 

I  have  done.    I  will  not  shed  a  tear  more 
Till  I  meet  Alvarez;  then  I'll  weep  for  joy. 
He  was  a  fine  young  gentleman,  and  sung  sweetly. 
An  you  had  heard  him  but  the  night  before 
We  were  married,  you  would  have  sworn  he  had  been 
A  swan,  and  sung  his  own  sad  epitaph. 
But  we'll  talk  of  the  Cardinal. 

Her.  Would  his  death 

Might  ransom  your  fair  sense !  he  should  not  live 
To  triumph  in  the  loss.     Beshrew  my  manhood, 
But  I  begin  to  melt. 

Ducn.  I  pray,  sir,  tell  me, 

For  I  can  understand,  although  they  say 
I  have  lost  my  wits;  but  they  are  safe  enough, 

[348] 


THE  CARDINAL 

And  I  shall  have  them  when  the  Cardinal  dies; 
Who  had  a  letter  from  his  nephew,  too, 
Since  he  was  slain. 

Her.  From  whence? 

Duch.      I  do  not  know  where  he  is.    But  in  some 
bower 
Within  a  garden  he  is  making  chaplets. 
And  means  to  send  me  one.     But  I  '11  not  take  it. 
I  have  flowers  enough,  I  thank  him,  while  I  live. 

Her.      But  do  you  love  your  governor? 

Duch.     Yes,  but  I'll  never  marry  him;  I  am  promis'd 
Already. 

Her.     To  whom,  madam? 

Duch.  Do  not  you 

Blush  when  you  ask  me  that  ?    Must  not  you  be 
My  husband?    I  know  why,  but  that's  a  secret. 
Indeed,  if  you  believe  me,  I  do  love 
No  man  alive  so  well  as  you.     The  Cardinal 
Shall  never  know't;  he'll  kill  us  both;  and  yet 
He  says  he  loves  me  dearly,  and  has  promis'd 
To  make  me  well  again;  but  I'm  afraid, 
One  time  or  other,  he  will  give  me  poison. 

Her.      Prevent  him,  madam,  and  take  nothing  from 
him. 

Duch.     Why,  do  you  think  'twill  hurt  me? 

Her.  It  will  kill  you. 

Duch.     I  shall  but  die,  and  meet  my  dear-loved  lord, 
Whom,  when  I  have  kiss'd,  I'll  come  again  and  work 
A  bracelet  of  my  hair  for  you  to  carry  him, 
When  you  are  going  to  heaven.    The  poesy  shall 

[349] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Be  my  own  name,  in  little  tears  that  I 

Will  weep  next  winter,  which,  congeal'd  i'  the  frost, 

Will  show  like  seed-pearl.     You'll  deliver  it? 

I  know  he'll  love  and  wear  it  for  my  sake. 

Her.     She  is  quite  lost. 

Duch.  Pray  give  me,  sir,  your  pardon; 

I  know  I  talk  not  wisely;  but  if  you  had 
The  burthen  of  my  sorrow,  you  would  miss 
Sometimes  your  better  reason.    Now  I'm  well. 
What  will  you  do  when  the  Cardinal  comes? 
He  must  not  see  you  for  the  world. 

Her.  He  shall  not; 

I'll  take  my  leave  before  he  comes. 

Duch.  Nay,  stay; 

I  shall  have  no  friend  left  me  when  you  go. 
He  will  but  sup ;  he  shall  not  stay  to  lie  with  me ; 
I  have  the  picture  of  my  lord  abed; 
Three  are  too  much  this  weather. 

Enter  Placentia. 

Pla.  Madam,  the  Cardinal. 

Her.     He  shall  sup  with  the  devil. 
Duch.  I  dare  not  stay; 

The  red  cock  will  be  angry.     I'll  come  again.8 

By  such  devices  as  this  does  Shirley  maintain  our 
sympathy  for  the  duchess  Rosaura;  but,  besides  pic- 
turing a  character  that  holds  our  sympathy,  he  has 
here— contrary  to  his  custom — pictured  a  character 
that  grows.     From  a  timorous  maiden,  hiding  her 

8  The  Cardinal,  V,  iii ;  Works,  V,  341-343. 


THE  CARDINAL 

heart  from  Columbo  and  the  world,  she  becomes  first 
the  woman  that  dares  demand  her  freedom,  appeal  to 
the  king,  and  hurl  defiance  at  the  cardinal,  and  then, 
widowed  of  d'Alvarez  and  crushed  beneath  the 
threefold  power,  the  woman  that  dares  to  draw  Her- 
nando to  her  aid  against  Columbo  and,  by  feigned 
insanity,  so  to  entrap  the  cardinal  that  she  may  "be 
Alvarez'  justicer." 

Strongly  contrasted  with  the  intriguing  duchess  on 
the  one  hand  and  with  the  intriguing  cardinal  on  the 
other  are  the  two  bold,  outspoken  soldiers,  Hernando 
and  Columbo— the  former  calmly,  the  latter  passion- 
ately brave.  In  Columbo,  Shirley  has  depicted  a 
commander  that  makes  his  very  impetuosity  a  means 
to  victory,  and  that  thinks  to  take  a  wife  as  he  would 
take  a  town— by  storm.  That  the  vanquished  have 
rights,  he  cannot  comprehend;  nor  can  he  compre- 
hend the  fine  nobility  of  Count  d'Alvarez.  Against 
a  valiant  swordsman,  he  scorns  a  base  advantage;  yet 
he  is  on  the  point  of  resenting  the  message  of  the 
duchess  by  slaying  the  duchess's  messenger,  and  he 
vents  his  rage  upon  the  duchess  with  the  same  brutal- 
ity as  his  revenge  upon  d'Alvarez.  He  is  perhaps 
most  nearly  magnificent  in  the  scene  of  the  assassina- 
tion at  the  wedding,  when  he  stays  to  justify  his  deed ; 
yet  more  characteristic  is  his  subsequent  visit  to  the 
duchess: 

C3SO 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Placentia.      Madam,  here's  Don  Columbo  says  he 

must 
Speak  with  your  grace. 

Duchess.  But  he  must  not,  I  charge  you. 

None  else  wait?    Is  this  well  done, 
To  triumph  in  his  tyranny?   .   .   . 

Antonio.      Sir,  you  must  not  see  her. 

Columbo.     Not  see  her?    Were  she  cabled  up  above 
The  search  of  bullet  or  of  fire,  were  she 
Within  her  grave,  and  that  the  toughest  mine 
That  ever  nature  teem'd  and  groan'd  withal, 
I  would  force  some  way  to  see  her.  — Do  not  fear 
I  come  to  court  your  madam ;  you  are  not  worth 
The  humblest  of  my  kinder  thoughts.    I  come 
To  show  the  man  you  have  provok'd,  and  lost, 
And  tell  you  what  remains  of  my  revenge. 
Live,  but  never  presume  again  to  marry. 
I'll  kill  the  next  at  the  altar,  and  quench  all 
The  smiling  tapers  with  his  blood.    If  after, 
You  dare  provoke  the  priest  and  heaven  so  much, 
To  take  another,  in  thy  bed  I'll  cut  him  from 
Thy  warm  embrace,  and  throw  his  heart  to  ravens. 

Celinda.     This  will  appear  an  unexampled  cruelty. 

Columbo.     Your  pardon,  madam;  rage  and  my 

revenge 
Not  perfect  took  away  my  eyes.    You  are 
A  noble  lady;  this  not  worth  your  eye-beam, 
One  of  so  slight  a  making  and  so  thin 
An  autumn  leaf  is  of  too  great  a  value 
To  play  which  shall  be  soonest  lost  i'  the  air. 

[352] 


THE  CARDINAL 

Be  pleased  to  own  me  by  some  name,  in  your 
Assurance;  I  despise  to  be  receiv'd 
There.    Let  her  witness  that  1  call  you  mistress; 
Honour  me  to  make  these  pearls  your  carkanet.9 

Against  this  valiant  brutality  of  Columbo,  Shirley 
paints  the  valiant  nobility  of  Hernando.  He  pic- 
tures Hernando's  wisdom  at  the  council-board,  his 
self-control  in  the  face  of  Columbo's  accusation,  his 
brave  devotion  to  the  dead  d'Alvarez  and  to  the  liv- 
ing duchess,  his  victory  in  the  duel,  his  rescue  of  the 
duchess  from  the  cardinal,  and  his  self-inflicted 
death.  Any  of  these  scenes  would  be  worth  quoting; 
but,  for  the  sake  of  illustrating  at  once  the  directness 
of  Hernando  and  the  indirection— or,  perhaps,  the 
crescent  bravery— of  the  duchess,  I  select  his  meeting 
with  her  after  d'Alvarez'  death: 

Hernando.     I  know  not  how  your  grace  will 

censure  so 
Much  boldness,  when  you  know  the  affairs  I  come  for. 

Duchess.  My  servant  has  prepar'd  me  to  receive  it, 
If  it  concern  my  dead  lord. 

Her.  Can  you  name 

So  much  of  your  Alvarez  in  a  breath, 
Without  one  word  of  your  revenge?    O,  madam, 
I  come  to  chide  you,  and  repent  my  great 
Opinion  of  your  virtue,  that  can  walk, 

9  The  Cardinal,  IV,  ii ;  Works,  v,  320-321. 

[353] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

And  spend  so  many  hours  in  naked  solitude ; 

As  if  you  thought  that  no  arrears  were  due 

To  his  death,  when  you  had  paid  his  funeral  charges, 

Made  your  eyes  red,  and  wet  a  handkerchief. 

I  come  to  tell  you  that  I  saw  him  bleed; 

I,  that  can  challenge  nothing  in  his  name 

And  honour,  saw  his  murder'd  body  warm, 

And  panting  with  the  labour  of  his  spirits, 

Till  my  amazed  soul  shrunk  and  hid  itself: 

While  barbarous  Columbo  grinning  stood, 

And  mock'd  the  weeping  wounds.     It  is  too  much 

That  you  should  keep  your  heart  alive  so  long 

After  this  spectacle,  and  not  revenge  it. 

Duch.     You  do  not  know  the  business  of  my  heart, 
That  censure  me  so  rashly;  yet  I  thank  you: 
And,  if  you  be  Alvarez'  friend,  dare  tell 
Your  confidence,  that  I  despise  my  life, 
But  know  not  how  to  use  it  in  a  service, 
To  speak  me  his  revenger.    This  will  need 
No  other  proof  than  that  to  you,  who  may 
Be  sent  with  cunning  to  betray  me,  I 
Have  made  this  bold  confession.     I  so  much 
Desire  to  sacrifice  to  that  hovering  ghost 
Colombo's  life,  that  I  am  not  ambitious 
To  keep  my  own  two  minutes  after  it. 

Her.      If  you  will  call  me  coward,  which  is  equal 
To  think  I  am  a  traitor,  I  forgive  it, 
For  this  brave  resolution,  which  time 
And  all  the  destinies  must  aid.    I  beg 
That  I  may  kiss  your  hand  for  this;  and  may 
The  soul  of  angry  honour  guide  it — 

C354] 


THE  CARDINAL 

Duch.  Whither? 

Her.     To  Don  Columbo's  heart. 

Duch.  It  is  too  weak,  I  fear,  alone. 

Her.     Alone?    Are  you  in  earnest?    Why,  will  it  not 
Be  a  dishonour  to  your  justice,  madam, 
Another  arm  should  interpose?    But  that 
It  were  a  saucy  act  to  mingle  with  you, 
I  durst,  nay,  I  am  bound  in  the  revenge 
Of  him  that's  dead,   (since  the  whole  world  has  interest 
In  every  good  man's  loss,)  to  offer  it: 
Dare  you  command  me,  madam? 

Duch.  Not  command; 

But  I  should  more  than  honour  such  a  truth 
In  man,  that  durst,  against  so  mighty  odds, 
Appear  Alvarez'  friend  and  mine.    The  Cardinal  — 

Her.     Is  for  the  second  course;  Columbo  must 
Be  first  cut  up;  his  ghost  must  lead  the  dance: 
Let  him  die  first. 

Duch.  But  how? 

Her.     How!  with  a  sword;  and,  if  I  undertake  it, 
I  will  not  lose  so  much  of  my  own  honour, 
To  kill  him  basely. 

Duch.  How  shall  I  reward 

This  infinite  service  ?    'Tis  not  modesty, 
While  now  my  husband  groans  beneath  his  tomb, 
And  calls  me  to  his  marble  bed,  to  promise 
What  this  great  act  might  well  deserve,  myself, 
If  you  survive  the  victor.    But  if  thus 
Alvarez'  ashes  be  appeas'd,  it  must 
Deserve  an  honourable  memory; 
And  though  Columbo  (as  he  had  all  power, 

C355] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

And  grasp'd  the  fates)  has  vowed  to  kill  the  man 
That  shall  succeed  Alvarez— 

Her.  Tyranny ! 

Duch.  Yet,  if  ever 

I  entertain  a  thought  of  love  hereafter, 
Hernando  from  the  world  shall  challenge  it; 
Till  when,  my  prayers  and  fortune  shall  wait  on  you. 

Her.     This  is  too  mighty  recompense. 

Duch.  'Tis  all  just. 

Her.     If  I  outlive  Columbo,  I  must  not 
Expect  security  at  home. 

Duch.  Thou  canst 

Not  fly  where  all  my  fortunes  and  my  love 
Shall  not  attend  to  guard  thee. 

Her.  If  I  die— 

Duch.  Thy  memory 

Shall  have  a  shrine,  the  next  within  my  heart 
To  my  Alvarez. 

Her.  Once  again  your  hand. 

Your  cause  is  so  religious  you  need  not 
Strengthen  it  with  your  prayers;  trust  it  to  me. 

Placentia.      Madam,  the  Cardinal. 

Duch.  Will  you  appear? 

Her.     An  he  had  all  the  horror  of  the  devil 
In's  face,  I  would  not  baulk  him.10 

Last  comes  the  cardinal;  a  subtle  statesman  subtly 
drawn.  Shirley  shows  us  but  little  of  his  doings:  his 
means  we  know  not;  but  we  feel  his  might.    How  the 

10  The  Cardinal,  iv,  ii;  Works,  v,  322-325. 

C356] 


THE  CARDINAL 

cardinal  forced  the  betrothal  of  the  duchess  to  his 
nephew,  and  how,  after  the  bold  assassination,  he  se- 
cured that  nephew's  pardon— or,  better  still,  release 
without  a  pardon— we  are  not  told;  we  know  only 
that  the  thing  is  done;  we  marvel  and  we  fear.  And 
just  as  Shirley  makes  us  feel  the  cardinal's  power 
without  letting  us  behold  its  operation,  so  Shirley 
makes  us  feel  the  cardinal's  wickedness  almost  with- 
out specific  crime.  With  the  exception  of  that  por- 
tion of  the  final  scene  in  which  the  cardinal  endeavors 
to  betray  the  duchess,  he  is  ever  the  reverend  church- 
man, full  of  regret  at  the  evil  he  beholds.  His  hypo- 
critical remorse  before  his  death  is  typical  of  his  life; 
his  needless  self-destruction,  a  dramatic  master-stroke 
of  irony: 

Cardinal.     I  have  deserv'd  vou  should  turn  from  me, 
sir: 
My  life  hath  been  prodigiously  wicked; 
My  blood  is  now  the  kingdom's  balm.    Oh,  sir, 
I  have  abus'd  your  ear,  your  trust,  your  people, 
And  my  own  sacred  office;  my  conscience 
Feels  now  the  sting.     Oh,  shew  your  charity 
And  with  your  pardon,  like  a  cool  soft  gale, 
Fan  my  poor  sweating  soul,  that  wanders  through 
Unhabitable  climes  and  parched  deserts. — 
But  I  am  lost,  if  the  great  world  forgive  me, 
Unless  I  find  your  mercy  for  a  crime 
You  know  not,  madam,  yet,  against  your  life, 

[357] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

I  must  confess,  more  than  my  black  intents 
Upon  your  honour;  you're  already  poisoned. 

King.     By  whom  ? 

Car.  By  me, 

In  the  revenge  I  ow'd  Columbo's  loss; 
With  your  last  meat  was  mix'd  a  poison,  that 
By  subtle  and  by  sure  degrees  must  let 
In  death. 

King.     Look  to  the  duchess,  our  physicians  ! 

Car.  Stay. 

I  will  deserve  her  mercy,  though  I  cannot 
Call  back  the  deed.     In  proof  of  my  repentance, 
If  the  last  breath  of  a  now  dying  man 
May  gain  your  charity  and  belief,  receive 
This  ivory  box;  in  it  an  antidote 
'Bove  that  they  boast  the  great  magistral  medicine: 
That  powder,  mix'd  with  wine,  by  a  most  rare 
And  quick  access  to  the  heart,  will  fortify  it 
Against  the  rage  of  the  most  nimble  poison. 
I  am  not  worthy  to  present  her  with  it. 
Oh,  take  it,  and  preserve  her  innocent  life. 

i  Lord.     Strange,  he  should  have  a  good  thing  in  such 
readiness. 

Car.     'Tis  that  which  in  my  jealousy  and  state, 
Trusting  to  false  predictions  of  my  birth, 
That  I  should  die  by  poison,  I  preserv'd 
For  my  own  safety.    Wonder  not,  I  made 
That  my  companion  was  to  be  my  refuge. 

Enter  Servant,  with  a  bowl  of  wine. 

i  Lord.     Here  is  some  touch  of  grace. 

C3583 


THE  CARDINAL 

Car.     In  greater  proof  of  my  pure  thoughts,  I  take 
This  first,  and  with  my  dying  breath  confirm 
My  penitence ;  it  may  benefit  her  life, 
But  not  my  wounds.    Oh,  hasten  to  preserve  her; 
And  though  I  merit  not  her  pardon,  let  not 
Her  fair  soul  be  divorced. 

The  Duchess  takes  the  bowl  and  drinks. 

King.     This  is  some  charity;  may  it  prosper,  madam! 

Valeria.    How  does  your  grace? 

Duch.     And  I  must  owe  my  life  to  him  whose  death 
Was  my  ambition?    Take  this  free  acknowledgment; 
I  had  intent,  this  night,  with  my  own  hand 
To  be  Alvarez'  justicer. 

King.  You  were  mad, 

And  thought  past  apprehension  of  revenge. 

Duch.     That  shape  I  did  usurp,  great  sir,  to  give 
My  art  more  freedom  and  defence;  but  when 
Hernando  came  to  visit  me,  I  thought 
I  might  defer  my  execution; 
Which  his  own  rage  supplied  without  my  guilt, 
And,  when  his  lust  grew  high,  met  with  his  blood. 

i  Lord.     The  Cardinal  smiles. 

Car.  Now  my  revenge  has  met 

With  you,  my  nimble  duchess  !    I  have  took 
A  shape  to  give  my  act  more  freedom  too, 
And  now  I  am  sure  she's  poison'd  with  that  dose 
I  gave  her  last. 

King.  Thou'rt  not  so  horrid! 

Duch.     Ha !  some  cordial. 

Car.  Alas,  no  preservative 

C359] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Hath  wings  to  overtake  it.    Were  her  heart 
Lock'd  in  a  quarry,  it  would  search,  and  kill 
Before  the  aids  can  reach  it.    I  am  sure 
You  shall  not  now  laugh  at  me. 

King.     How  came  you  by  that  poison? 

Car.  I  prepar'd  it, 

Resolving,  when  I  had  enjoy' d  her,  which 
The  colonel  prevented,  by  some  art 
To  make  her  take  it,  and  by  death  conclude 
My  last  revenge.    You  have  the  fatal  story. 

King.     This  is  so  great  a  wickedness,  it  will 
Exceed  belief. 

Car.  I  knew  I  could  not  live. 

Surg.     Your  wounds,  sir,  were  not  desperate. 

Car.     Not  mortal?    Ha!    Were  they  not  mortal? 

Surg.     If  I  have  skill  in  surgery. 

Car.     Then  I  have  caught  myself  in  my  own  engine. 

2  Lord.     It  was  your  fate,  you  said,  to  die  by  poison. 

Car.     That  was  my  own  prediction,  to  abuse 
Your  faith;  no  human  art  can  now  resist  it; 
I  feel  it  knocking  at  the  seat  of  life; 
It  must  come  in;  I  have  wreck'd  all  my  own, 
To  try  your  charities :  now  it  would  be  rare, — 
If  you  but  waft  me  with  a  little  prayer; 
My  wings  that  flag  may  catch  the  wind ;  but  'tis 
In  vain;  the  mist  is  risen,  and  there's  none 
To  steer  my  wand' ring  bark.11 

In  the  creation  and  delineation  of  character,  as  in 
the  mastery  of  plot  and  scene,  we  have  found  reason 

11  The  Cardinal,  v,  iii;  Works,  v,  348-351. 

C3603 


THE  CARDINAL 

highly  to  commend  the  work  of  Shirley  in  The  Car- 
dinal. Were  we  likewise  to  discuss  its  language— its 
poetic  form— we  might  add  a  commendation  more; 
indeed,  the  frequent  beauty  of  its  verse  must  be  al- 
ready evident  from  incidental  illustration.  To  say 
all  this  of  a  play  that  attempted,  in  the  year  1641,  to 
present  once  more  the  Websterian  round  of  revenge, 
depravity,  and  rape,  is  no  small  praise.  Shirley  was 
correct  in  his  opinion  that  this  play  might  "rival  with 
his  best."  12  Save  for  his  own  modesty,  he  might  have 
added  that,  even  when  measured  with  the  best  work 
of  his  contemporaries,  Shirley's  The  Cardinal  must 
be  accounted  a  notable  romantic  tragedy. 

12  Prologue  to  The  Cardinal;  Works,  v,  275. 


[361] 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE  THIRD  DRAMATIC  PERIOD-CONCLUDED 

THE  SISTERS  AND  THE  COURT  SECRET 

IN  our  series  of  eleven  plays  surviving  from  Shir- 
ley's third,  and  final,  period,  we  come  now  to 
the  last  two  of  his  productions:  The  Sisters  and 
The  Court  Secret.  These  two  plays— like  his  other 
dramas  of  this  period,  with  the  exception  of  The 
Politique  Father  and  The  Constant  Maid — belong 
not  to  the  realistic  but  to  the  romantic  school. 
Neither  play  is  a  notable  achievement;  but  each  is 
thoroughly  entertaining,  and  both  are  representative 
of  the  style  of  play  that  Shirley  himself  seems  most 
to  have  enjoyed. 

Last  of  the  plays  of  Shirley  to  be  acted  on  the  stage, 
The  Sisters,  licensed  April  26,  1642,  is  a  gay  mixture 
of  romantic  comedy  and  farce.  Three  stories  mingle 
in  its  plot:  the  fortunes  of  a  proud  sister  and  a  hum- 
ble sister,  of  whom  each  comes  to  her  reward;  the 
amusing  rogueries  of  a  bandit  chief,  trapped  at  last 
in  his  own  net;  and  the  familiar  but  pretty  romance 
of  the  maiden-page,  who,  sent  a-wooing  by  the  man 
she  loves,  becomes  the  object  of  his  mistress's  passion. 

[:3623 


THE  SISTERS 

Rarely  in  the  minor  Elizabethan  drama  are  three 
actions  more  effectively  combined :  each  part  seems 
absolutely  essential  to  the  others.  No  criticism  appar- 
ently could  be  less  apt  than  that  of  Ward,  that  The 
Sisters  seems  "rather  hastily  put  together" ; 1  or  than 
the  similar  remark  of  Dibdin  that  the  play  "is  not 
well  hung  together."2  Slight  in  substance,  The  Sis- 
ters is  excellent  in  matters  of  technique,  and  especially 
in  this  matter  of  structural  unity. 

In  the  dominions  of  Farnese,  Prince  of  Parma, 
dwell  two  noble  sisters,  Paulina  and  Angellina.  The 
former,  extravagant  and  insolently  proud,  drives  to 
despair  Antonio,  their  uncle.  The  latter,  modest, 
gentle,  and  destined  for  a  nunnery,  he  finds  as  diffi- 
cult to  convert  to  worldliness  as  her  sister  to  true 
gentlehood.  Paulina  is  resolved  to  wed  no  less  a  hus- 
band than  the  Prince  of  Parma;  and  in  this  ambition 
she  is  confirmed  by  the  prophecy  of  a  band  of  wander- 
ing astrologers.  These  astrologers,  who  in  reality  are 
Frapolo  and  his  banditti  in  disguise,  return  presently 
to  Paulina's  castle,  impersonating  now  the  Prince  of 
Parma  and  his  train.  Paulina,  completely  deceived, 
accepts  Frapolo  as  her  husband,  and  prepares  to  de- 
part with  him  to  court,  with  all  her  plate  and  jewels. 

Meanwhile,  however,  the  true  Prince  of  Parma 

1  Ward,  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III,  118. 

2  Dibdin,  A  Complete  History  of  the  Stage,  IV,  44. 

[363] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

has  arrived,  brought  partly  by  a  desire  to  behold 
Paulina  in  her  pride,  partly  to  win  Angellina  for  his 
follower,  Lord  Contarini.  At  sight  of  Angellina,  the 
prince  falls  in  love  with  her  himself,  and,  forgetful 
of  his  follower,  becomes  her  suitor.  She  answers  that 
she  has  already  bestowed  her  heart  upon  Lord  Con- 
tarini's  page,  Vergerio.  Her  avowal  and  the  result- 
ing discomfiture  of  prince  and  lord  bring  forth  a 
revelation :  Vergerio  the  page  is  Pulcheria,  daughter 
of  the  Viceroy  of  Sicily  and  Lord  Contarini's  former 
mistress,  whom  he  believed  to  be  dead.  Lord  Con- 
tarini turns  promptly  to  his  regained  Pulcheria;  and 
as  Pulcheria,  unlike  Shakspere's  Viola,  can  supply  no 
brother  Sebastian  in  her  stead,  the  loving  Angellina 
makes  shift  to  accept  the  hand  and  scepter  of  the 
Prince  of  Parma. 

It  remains,  however,  to  unmask  the  bandit  chief- 
tain Frapolo  at  Paulina's  castle;  and  so  Farnese  con- 
fronts his  counterfeit.  At  first,  Frapolo  boldly  plays 
the  prince;  but  finding  himself  detected  and  escape 
cut  off,  he  confesses  the  deception.  The  pride  of 
Paulina  takes  a  mighty  tumble;  but  the  worst— or 
best— is  yet  to  come :  her  nurse— supposing  that  Paul- 
ina is  about  to  be  married  to  the  real  Farnese— 
reveals  the  fact  that  Paulina  is  but  a  supposititious 
child,  own  daughter  to  the  nurse.  The  blunt  old 
uncle  voices  the  sentiments  of  all:  "Why,  there's  a 


THE  SISTERS 

baggage  and  a  thief  well  met  then!"3  The  haughty 
sister  is  married  to  the  bandit  chief;  the  gentle  sister 
to  the  Prince  of  Parma. 

As  compared  with  his  mastery  of  plot,  Shirley's 
mastery  of  characterization  in  The  Sisters  is  less  con- 
spicuous: as  so  often  happens  in  these  romantic  plays, 
the  character-drawing  is  adequate  rather  than  re- 
markable. And  yet,  even  in  this  character-drawing, 
the  work  of  Shirley  in  The  Sisters  is  far  from  com- 
monplace. Antonio,  the  "old,  blunt,  brave"  uncle  of 
the  pair;  the  two  sisters,  admirably  contrasted;  Fra- 
polo,  the  magnetic  and  audacious  bandit;  and,  most 
entertaining  of  all,  the  credulous,  cowardly,  unfilial 
Piperollo:  all  these  are  not  only  clearly  delineated 
but  capitally  conceived.  Of  Shirley's  power  both  of 
conception  and  delineation  of  character,  the  opening 
scene,  in  which  Frapolo  rallies  his  frightened  follow- 
ers, is  an  excellent  example;  but  an  even  better  exam- 
ple is  the  scene  in  which  Frapolo,  at  the  very  end, 
attempts  for  a  moment  to  outface  the  true  Prince  of 
Parma  and  his  following: 

Frapolo.     Can  you  stand 
The  dazzling  sun  so  long,  and  be  not  struck 
Blind  for  this  bold  affront?    What  wildness  brought  you, 
In  multitudes,  to  fright  my  happy  peace, 
And  this  good  lady's,  my  most  virtuous  consort? 

3  The  Sisters,  v,  ii;  Works,  v,  422. 

[365:1 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Longino.     He  bears  up  still!  [J side.] 

Frap.     Have  all  my  cares  and  watchings  to  preserve 
Your  lives  and  dearest  liberties  deserv'd 
This  strange  return,  and  at  a  time  when  most 
Your  happiness  is  concern'd?  since,  by  our  marriage 
With  this  sweet  lady,  full  of  grace  and  beauty, 
You  may  expect  an  heir  to  bless  your  country. 

Contarini.     Will  you  suffer  him? 

Frap.     'Tis  time  your  prince  were  dead;  and  when 
I  am 
Companion  to  my  father's  dust,  these  tumults, 
Fomented  by  seditious  men,  that  are 
Weary  of  plenty  and  delights  of  peace, 
Shall  not  approach  to  interrupt  the  calm 
Good  princes  after  death  enjoy.    Go  home, 
I  pray;  depart:  I  rather  will  submit 
To  be  depos'd,  than  wear  a  power  or  title 
That  shall  not  all  be  dedicate  to  serve  you. 
My  life  is  but  the  gift  of  Heaven,  to  waste  it 
For  your  dear  sakes.    My  people  are  my  children, 
Whom  I  am  bound  in  nature  and  religion 
To  cherish  and  protect.    Perhaps  you  have 
Some  grievance  to  present.    You  shall  have  justice 
Against  the  proudest  here:  I  look  not  on 
Nobility  of  birth,  office,  or  fortunes ; 
The  poorest  subject  has  a  native  charter, 
And  a  birthright  to  the  laws  and  commonwealth, 
Which,  with  an  equal  and  impartial  stream, 
Shall  flow  to  every  bosom. 

Strozzo.  Pious  Prince ! 

D66] 


THE  SISTERS 

Farnese.      I  am  at  a  loss  to  hear  him.    Sure  I  am 
Farnese,  if  I  be  not  lost  by  the  way. 

Piperollo.  Stand  off,  gentlemen,— let  me  see  — 
which?  Hum!  this?— no;  th'other?  Hum!  send  for  a 
lion,  and  turn  him  loose;  he  will  not  hurt  the  true  prince. 

Farn.      Do  not  you  know  me,  sir? 

FRAP.  Yes,  I  know  you  too  well;  but  it  stands  not 
with  my  honour.    What  composition? 

Farn.  Who  am  I?— Gentlemen,  how  dare  you  suffer 
This  thing  to  talk,  if  I  be  your  Farnese? 

Frap.     I  say  I  am  the  prince. 

Farn.     Prince  of  what? 

Frap.     Of  rogues,  an  please  your  excellence.4 

This  passage  shows  something  of  Shirley's  power 
both  for  the  conception  and  for  the  delineation  of 
comic  character;  yet  even  more  delicious  for  char- 
acter and  for  action  are  the  two  scenes  in  which  Fra- 
polo  and  his  banditti  as  astrologers  prophesy  that 
Lucio  and  Piperollo  shall  be  robbed,  and  then,  in 
their  own  persons,  carry  out  the  prophecy.  In  the 
first  of  these  scenes,  two  of  the  banditti  have  prophe- 
sied that  the  steward,  Lucio,  shall  be  made  a  lord, 
and  that  Piperollo  his  servant  shall  become  a  knight. 
At  that  moment,  Frapolo  enters ;  and  to  him  the  stew- 
ard and  the  knave  appeal  for  a  verification  of  their 
respective  fortunes: 

4  The  Sisters,  v,  ii ;  Works,  v,  420-421. 

C367: 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Lucio.  Sir,  if  you  please,  till  my  lady  return,  to  sat- 
isfy her  steward  and  oblige  him  by  your  art — one  of  your 
under  mathematics  has  given  me  a  comfortable  destiny. 

Frapolo.     Your  hand.    Where  were  you  born? 

Luc.     I  know  not,  sir. 

Rancone.     A  lord—  [Ran.  whispers  Frap.] 

Frap.  No  matter;  Venus,  in  the  ascendant  with  Sol, 
being  lady  of  your  seventh— hum !  hum  !  with  Jupiter,  de- 
signs you  to  be  a  lord. 

Luc.  They  all  agree;  the  miracle  of  learning!  —  One 
question  more,  I  beseech  you,  sir.  I  am  to  ride  with  my 
man  to  receive  my  lady's  rent  to-morrow,  through  the 
forest. 

Frap.    Go  to ! 

Luc.  Now,  I  desire  to  know  whether  we  shall  be 
robb'd  in  our  return,  or  no? 

Frap.  What  time  do  you  think  precisely  to  come 
back,  sir?  for  we  should  know  the  very  minute. 

Luc.  The  money  is  ready,  sir,  and  we  do  purpose — 
in  your  ear — 

Frap.  Yes,  you  shall  be  robb'd;  there's  nothing  in 
nature  to  prevent  it. 

PiPEROLLO.     Will  they  kill  us,  an  please  you  ? 

Frap.  No,  they  shall  not  kill  you ;  they  shall  only  take 
your  money,  and  break  your  pate;  that  will  be  all. 

Piperollo.  Why,  let  them  rob  us,  sir;  the  loss  of  our 
money  will  be  an  evidence  of  our  preferment,  and  you 
may  have  more  assurance  to  be  a  lord,  and  I  of  my  knight- 
hood.5 

8  The  Sisters,  in,  i ;  Works,  v,  385-386. 

I  [368] 


THE  SISTERS 

Accordingly,  on  the  morning  following,  Lucio 
and  Piperollo,  with  their  thousand  pistoles  of  rent, 
pass  through  the  forest;  and  Piperollo,  fearful  lest 
they  escape  the  attention  of  the  outlaws,  sets  up  such 
a  whooping  that  Frapolo  and  his  men  imagine,  for 
the  moment,  that  some  stratagem  is  to  be  played  upon 
them  :  then  they  grasp  the  situation— and  the  victims : 

Strozzo.  The  gentleman  is  very  merry.  They  that 
mean  well,  and  have  their  wits  about  them,  do  not  use  to 
call  upon  our  tribe.  This  is  a  plot,  a  very  plot:  and  yet 
the  coast  is  clear.  .  .  .  'Tis  my  proud  madam's  steward 
and  our  quondam  fellow  thief;  they  were  told  their  for- 
tunes to  be  robb'd.  Here  had  been  a  purchase  lost,  if  I 
had  not  lain  perdu.— You  shall  be  dispatch'd  presently, 
never  fear  it.  [He  whistles.] 

Luc.     What's  that?     I  do  not  like  that  tune. 

Pip.  Hum!  I  am  not  in  love  with  that  quail-pipe.  I 
could  dwindle,  but  that  I  have  a  strong  faith  in  the  mathe- 
matics.   Thieves,  an't  be  thy  will! 

Luc.  If  they  should  cut  our  throats  now— this  is  your 
folly.    Would  I  were  off ! 

Pip.  Would  I  were  a  knight  in  an  embroidered  dish- 
clout  !  Have  a  good  heart,  sir;  there's  no  more  to  be  said 
in't;  let  the  stars  take  their  course;  'tis  my  lady's  money; 
and  if  we  be  robb'd,  we  are  so  much  the  nearer  to  prefer- 
ment. 
Re-enter  Frapolo  and  the  rest,  masked  and  disguised. 

Luc.    Ah,  sweet  gentlemen,  take  but  the  money— 

Pip.      'Tis  ready  told;  nay,  nay,  we  are  friends.     Give 

D69] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

us  but  a  note  under  your  hands  for  my  lady's  satisfaction, 
that  you  have  received  it,  gentlemen. 

Luc.  You  need  not  trouble  yourselves  to  tell  it,  gen- 
tlemen; it  is  all  right. 

Longino.     So,  so  !  we'll  take  your  words. 

Pip.  I  should  know  that  vizard;  the  garments  that 
you  wear  too  I  have  seen. — Old  acquaintance  ! 

Frap.     Does  he  know  you?    Cut  his  throat. 

Pip.  No,  sir,  I  do  not  know  him,  nor  any  man,  nor 
myself;  I  was  not  once  robbed  before,  neither  did  I  help 
any  man  to  rob  my  own  father  and  mother !  I  knew  no 
cedar  chest,  I ;  I  disclaim  it;  nor  was  any  man  that  I  knew 
left  bound  for  the  money.  You  are  all  honest  gentlemen, 
and  I  congratulate  our  good  fortune  that  you  came  so 
luckily  in  the  very  nick;  we  had  carried  home  the  money 
else  in  good  sadness. — Sir,  we  are  made  for  ever.  —  Rare 
mathematicians ! 

Frap.  What's  that  you  talk,  sirrah,  of  mathemati- 
cians? 

Pip.  It  pleased  some  of  the  learned  tribe  to  visit  my 
lady  not  long  since;  but  they  are  well,  I  hope;  they  told 
us  we  should  be  robb'd  and  'tis  done ;  blessed  Chaldean ! 

Frap.     What  became  of  them? 

Pip.  They  'scaped  a  scouring;  for  my  lady's  cynical 
uncle,  in  mere  malice  to  learning,  rais'd  the  clowns  upon 
them,  persuading  the  Hobbinols  they  came  to  rob  the 
house;  but  honoured  be  the  stars!  they  brought  them  off 
at  the  back  gate. 

Frap.  They  seem  honest  fellows;  let  them  live,  and 
pass. 

[37o] 


THE  SISTERS 

Luc.  We  humbly  thank  you,  gentlemen.  — Come, 
Piperollo. 

Pip.  And  yet,  now  I  remember,  there  wants  a  cir- 
cumstance. My  pate  is  not  broke  yet;  there  was  a  clause. 
The  Chaldean  was  a  little  out. 

Frap.  I  had  forgot.  [Aside.]—  Will  you  be  prating, 
sirrah?  [He  breaks  his  head.] 

Pip.  Now  'tis  done;  I  thank  you,  dear  gentlemen,  I 
thank  you;  go  forth,  and  be  a  knight!  Mathematician,  I 
adore  thee.  It  bleeds.  Where  are  you,  sir?  all  is  com- 
plete, and  my  head  is  broke,  according  to  prophecy.  Oh, 
admirable  Chaldean!6 

These  extracts,  introduced  to  show  Shirley's  mas- 
tery of  characterization  in  the  persons  of  Frapolo 
and  Piperollo,  illustrate  even  more  his  mastery  of 
wholesome  comedy.  From  the  farce  of  the  supposed 
astrologers  picking  pockets  while  they  decipher 
palms,  to  the  pure  character-comedy  of  Piperollo, 
complaining  because  his  head  has  not  been  broken, 
Shirley,  in  these  and  other  scenes,  justifies  amply  the 
remark  of  Swinburne  that  The  Sisters  is  a  "very  spir- 
ited and  amusing  comedy."7  Professor  Schelling, 
as  if  in  echo  of  Dibdin  and  of  Ward,  speaks  of  the 
play  as  "hasty  and  unworthy."8    That  The  Sisters  is 

6  The  Sisters,  iv,  i ;  Works,  v,  394-396. 

7  A.  C.  Swinburne,  "James  Shirley,"  in   The  Fortnightly   Review, 
Lin  (n.s.  xlvii),  476. 

8  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  11,  322. 

C370 


JAMES   SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

not  Shirley's  greatest  comedy,  we  may  readily  con- 
cede; but,  this  granted,  I  for  one  am  still  of  the  opin- 
ion that,  both  for  its  fun  and  for  its  romance.  The 
Sisters  is  at  once  well  done  and  genuinely  delightful. 

Last  of  all  the  plays  of  Shirley  is  The  Court  Secret, 
a  dramatic  romance,  or,  as  the  title-page  calls  it,  "A 
Tragi-Comedy:  Never  Acted,  But  prepared  for  the 
Scene  at  Black-Friers.''9  For  romantic  subject  and 
for  effectiveness  of  plot,  this  play  is  at  once  an  appro- 
priate and  a  worthy  conclusion  to  the  long  list  of 
Shirley's  dramas. 

Piracquo,  a  nobleman  of  Spain,  has  been  forced  in 
youth  to  play  the  pirate;  but,  having  thus  amassed 
great  wealth  and  having  long  resided  in  high  favor 
at  the  court  of  Portugal,  he  has  been  brought  back 
from  banishment  by  the  Spanish  prince  Don  Carlo, 
heir  to  the  throne.  With  him  has  come  Piracquo's 
son,  Don  Manuel,  Prince  Carlo's  friend.  The  for- 
tunes of  this  Don  Manuel  form  the  subject  of  the 
play. 

On  his  arrival  at  the  court  of  Spain,  Don  Manuel 
falls  in  love  with  Clara,  daughter  of  Duke  Mendoza. 
Clara  returns  his  love,  but  various  forces  (as  is  neces- 
sary in  dramatic  romance)  proceed  to  intervene.  At 
the  very  outset,  Maria  the  infanta  falls  in  love  with 

0  From  the  title-page  of  the  copy  of  the  1653  edition  in  the  posses- 
sion of  the  present  writer. 

[372] 


THE  COURT  SECRET 

Manuel  — despite  the  fact  that  a  marriage  is  pending 
between  Maria  and  Antonio,  the  Prince  of  Portugal. 
In  the  second  place,  Maria's  royal  brother  Carlo— 
although  all  but  betrothed  to  the  Portuguese  princess 
Isabella,  sister  of  Antonio— is  madly  in  love  with 
Mendoza's  daughter  Clara.  Thus  the  love  of  Man- 
uel and  Clara  is  from  both  sides  royally  assailed; 
Manuel  must  be  rival  to  his  patron,  Prince  Carlo; 
Clara  to  her  bosom  friend,  Maria  the  infanta;  and 
meanwhile,  both  Carlo  and  Maria  are  slighting  the 
Portuguese  alliance  and  the  wishes  of  the  king,  their 
father. 

This  complicated  situation,  Shirley  indicates  rap- 
idly and  admirably  in  the  opening  scene;  and  even 
there  he  adds  two  further  complications.  The  first 
of  these  is  the  interference  of  Roderigo,  the  king's 
brother:  he  reveals  to  the  Prince  of  Portugal,  An- 
tonio, the  fact  that  Prince  Carlo  courts  Clara  instead 
of  Isabella;  he  makes  Antonio  suspicious  of  the  rela- 
tions of  Maria  and  Manuel;  he  arouses  Carlo's  anger 
at  Manuel's  alleged  presumption  in  thus  courting 
Carlo's  sister;  and  he  attempts  to  blackmail  Manuel's 
father,  Piracquo,  by  threatening  to  prevent  the  seal- 
ing of  his  pardon.  The  second  outside  complication, 
barely  hinted  in  the  opening  scene  but  destined  to 
prove  of  great  importance,  is  the  fact  that  one  Pedro, 
who  is  at  once  a  kinsman  of  Piracquo  and  a  servant  to 

[373] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Duke  Mendoza,  has  possession  of  a  certain  secret. 
This  secret  appears  to  involve  Mendoza  in  some 
long-hidden  treason,  and  to  concern  the  identity  of 
Prince  Carlo  and  our  hero,  Don  Manuel. 

As  a  result  of  his  ill-founded  jealousy  of  Man- 
uel, Prince  Antonio  provokes  him  to  a  combat,  and 
thus  unintentionally  occasions  the  imprisonment  of 
Manuel.  This  imprisonment,  in  turn,  brings  about 
two  meetings:  one  between  Clara  and  Maria,  the 
other  between  Manuel  and  Prince  Carlo.  The  first 
reveals  to  Clara  and  the  princess  that  they  are  rivals 
for  the  love  of  Manuel;  and  the  second  similarly 
reveals  to  Manuel  and  Prince  Carlo  that  they  are 
rivals  for  the  love  of  Clara.  Prince  Carlo  secures 
Don  Manuel's  release  from  prison  and  his  reconcilia- 
tion with  Prince  Antonio.  Manuel  in  turn,  moved 
by  Carlo's  generosity,  promises  Carlo  to  set  Clara 
free  and  leave  her  to  choose  between  him  and  the 
prince.  She  accepts  her  liberty — and  forthwith  re- 
news her  pledge  to  Manuel.  Prince  Carlo,  vowing 
vengeance,  secretly  appoints  a  meeting  with  Don 
Manuel.  Clara  suspects;  but  Manuel  assures  her 
that  the  prince  would  never  wound  him  basely  and 
that  nothing  shall  tempt  him  to  lift  sword  against  the 
prince.  Repairing  to  the  place  appointed,  Manuel 
hears  loud  cries  for  help:  Prince  Carlo's  page  runs 
toward  him,  declaring  that  a  Moor  has  slain  his  mas- 

[374;] 


THE  COURT  SECRET 

ter  and  that  the  Moor  pursues.  Manuel,  hastening 
to  Carlo's  rescue,  meets  the  Moor;  they  fight;  the 
Moor  falls— and  proves  to  be  Prince  Carlo  in 
disguise. 

Meanwhile,  the  princess  Isabella  has  arrived  un- 
heralded from  Portugal  — and  Prince  Carlo  is  no- 
where to  be  found.  The  court  is  distracted  at  his 
untimely  absence.  His  fate  is  announced  in  person  by 
Don  Manuel,  himself  the  murderer!  Duke  Mendoza 
—  even  beyond  Carlo's  royal  father — is  clamorous 
for  vengeance.  Prince  Antonio  and  Piracquo  inter- 
vene: the  former  presents  the  testimony  of  the  dying 
Carlo  that  Manuel  fought  believing  himself  the 
avenger  of  Carlo  on  the  Moor;  the  latter  declares 
that  the  man  guilty  of  "the  prince's  loss"  is  not  Don 
Manuel  but  Duke  Mendoza!  And  thereupon,  Men- 
doza, with  Pedro  as  a  witness,  confesses  what  he 
knows  of  the  court  secret:  the  murdered  prince  is  not 
the  real  Prince  Carlo,  but  is  Julio,  Mendoza's  son, 
substituted  in  infancy  when  the  royal  child  was  stolen 
from  his  nurse,  Mendoza's  wife. 

Subsequently,  from  the  imprisoned  duke  Men- 
doza, his  daughter  Clara  hears  in  full  the  story: 
Prince  Carlo,  who  has  courted  her,  is  in  fact  her 
brother;  and  the  murderer  of  this  brother  is  her 
lover,  Manuel!  And  yet,  she  cannot  curse  him.  She 
goes  to  Manuel's  cell,  and  finds  Maria  there.     He, 

C375] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ignorant  of  the  identity  of  the  slain  prince  Carlo,  is 
using  the  murder  as  a  means  to  cure  the  princess  of 
her  love  for  him.  Maria  declares  that  she  can  for- 
give him  even  the  death  of  Carlo.  Then  Manuel,  to 
bring  the  princess  to  her  reason,  asks  Clara  to  play 
Maria's  part;  to  answer  as  the  princess  how  she  can 
love  the  man  that  slew  the  prince  her  brother.  And 
Clara,  who  knows  that  the  slain  man  is  not  Maria's 
brother  but  her  own,  declares  that  she  can  still  for- 
give and  love  the  slayer.  Manuel,  fearful  lest  Clara's 
words  encourage  the  princess,  declares  emphatically 
that  their  love  can  never  meet;  and  Clara,  forgetful 
that  she  but  plays  the  princess,  swoons  at  the  words. 
The  princess  and  Manuel  soon  revive  her;  and  the 
princess,  touched  by  the  love  of  Manuel  and  Clara, 
resigns  her  rivalry  for  Manuel's  love,  and  reveals 
the  identity  of  the  murdered  Carlo.  Maria's  decision 
ultimately  involves  her  acceptance  of  Prince  Antonio. 
But  Julio,  the  pseudo-Carlo,  is  not  dead.  Despite 
the  wounds  inflicted  by  Don  Manuel,  he  soon  recov- 
ers; and  Isabella,  Princess  of  Portugal,  to  whom 
while  lying  wounded  he  has  sent  messages  praying 
her  forgiveness,  decides  that  she  loves  the  man  and 
not  the  title:  that  Julio,  son  of  Duke  Mendoza,  shall 
receive  her  hand.  Since  Julio-Carlo  lives,  Don 
Manuel  is  freed  from  prison  to  be  joined  by  Clara. 
Only  the  king  mourns:  he  has  lost  an  heir,  and  he 

[376;] 


THE  COURT  SECRET 

vows  that  Duke  Mendoza,  responsible  for  the  infant 
Carlo's  loss,  shall  pay  the  penalty.  Again  Piracquo 
intervenes  and,  with  Pedro  as  a  witness,  reveals  the 
second  part  of  the  court  secret:  the  pirate  that  stole 
young  Carlo  was— Piracquo!  the  true  prince  Carlo 
lives;  Piracquo's  "son,"  Don  Manuel,  is  this  royal 
heir! 

Such  is  The  Court  Secret:  a  dramatic  romance 
turning  upon  a  double  imposture.  Rarely  among  the 
complicated  plots  of  Shirley  is  the  complication  at 
once  more  elaborate  and  more  firmly  knit.  The  mu- 
tual love  of  Manuel  and  Clara  is  assailed  on  the  one 
hand  by  the  love  of  the  infanta  Maria  for  Don  Man- 
uel—her brother,  though  she  knows  it  not— and  on 
the  other  hand  by  the  love  of  the  supposed  prince 
Carlo  for  Clara— his  sister,  as  he  later  finds.  These 
two  complicating  passions  are  complicated  in  their 
turn  by  the  pending  alliance  of  Maria  with  Antonio, 
Prince  of  Portugal,  and  by  that  of  the  supposed  Carlo 
with  Antonio's  sister  Isabella.  And  all  through  the 
play,  Piracquo,  protector  of  the  hero,  and  Roderigo, 
his  arch-enemy,  struggle  for  the  mastery,  and  give 
visual  embodiment  to  the  contending  fates;  while 
Duke  Mendoza,  timorous  of  conscience,  and  his  ser- 
vant Pedro,  mocking  at  his  fears,  keep  ever  before 
us  the  unknown  but  inevitable  solution— the  impend- 
ing revelation  of  the  fatal  secret. 

[377] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Perhaps  it  is  in  this  very  combination  of  suspense 
and  of  surprise  as  methods  of  holding  the  interest  to 
the  end,  that  Shirley,  in  The  Court  Secret,  shows  his 
greatest  mastery.  Coleridge,  in  listing  the  character- 
istics that,  in  his  opinion,  distinguish  Shakspere  from 
all  other  dramatic  poets,  places  first  Shakspere's  use 
of  "expectation  in  preference  to  surprise." 10  Surprise, 
on  the  other  hand,  seems  the  method  most  frequently 
employed  in  the  dramatic  romances  of  Fletcher. 
That  Shirley,  in  The  Court  Secret,  succeeds  in  com- 
bining these  seemingly  opposed  devices  into  one: 
that  he  gains  the  interest  of  suspense  by  making  us 
expect  at  any  moment  the  revelation  of  the  all-con- 
trolling secret,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  gains  the  in- 
terest of  surprise  by  keeping  us  utterly  in  the  dark  as 
to  what  this  secret  is:  that  Shirley  succeeds  in  doing 
this,  is,  I  feel,  no  small  achievement.  From  the 
method  of  Shakspere  and  from  the  method  of 
Fletcher,  Shirley  has  seized  the  distinguishing  essen- 
tials, has  reconciled  their  seeming  conflict,  and  has 
utilized  them  both  in  the  plot-structure  of  this  his 
final  play. 

Of  the  characterization  of  The  Court  Secret,  little 
need  be  said.  Except  in  the  Mendoza- Pedro  scenes, 
it  is  the  characterization  of  Fletcherian  romance,  not 

10  Coleridge,  Complete  Works  (edited  by  Shedd,  New  York,  1884), 
IV,  61. 

r378] 


THE  COURT  SECRET 

the  characterization  of  Shaksperian  comedy:  it  exists 
to  tell  the  story,  not  to  make  it.  The  brave  and  gen- 
erous princes,  the  devoted  ladies,  the  stanch  Piracquo, 
the  impotent  king,  the  intriguing  Roderigo:  all  are 
pleasing  embodiments  of  the  familiar  types.  Even 
the  frightened  duke  Mendoza  and  his  bold  confeder- 
ate Pedro— who  at  times  lift  the  play  into  the  realm 
of  comedy  of  character— are  but  an  amusing  reversal 
of  the  audacious  Lorenzo  of  The  Traitor  and  his  tim- 
orous Depazzi.  Not  in  his  characters  but  in  his  plot 
lay  Shirley's  interest. 

Thus,  with  a  typical  romance,  we  conclude  our  reg- 
ister of  Shirley's  plays.  Allied  in  subject-matter,  in 
tone,  and  in  method  to  The  Imposture  and  to  The 
Doubtful  Heir,  The  Court  Secret  represents  far  bet- 
ter than  The  Sisters  or  The  Cardinal  or  The  Pol- 
itique Father  the  type  of  drama  that  Shirley  most  fre- 
quently produced:  a  type  that  presents  not  farce  or 
humors  or  manners  on  the  one  hand,  or  psychological 
or  even  romantic  tragedy  on  the  other;  but  rather  a 
type  of  drama  that  leads  hero  and  heroine  into  ro- 
mantic complications  seemingly  inextricable,  only  to 
end  by  lifting  them  out  of  prison  or  slaughter  to  a 
throne;  in  short,  the  type  of  drama  that  springs  from 
Fletcherian  romance,  and  that  needs  only  a  more 
strenuous  and  blatant  hero  to  be  accepted  as  an  ances- 
tor of  the  "heroic"  drama  of  the  Restoration.     For 

L379] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

the  last  play  in  a  period  dominated  by  romantic 
drama,  for  the  last  play  in  a  career  presenting,  as  we 
have  seen,  a  struggle  between  realism  and  romanti- 
cism, and  ending  in  the  victory  of  the  latter,  no  drama 
could  be  more  appropriate  than  The  Court  Secret. 


SUMMARY 

From  a  consideration  of  Shirley's  final  play  as  typi- 
cal of  his  interests  and  his  art,  I  pass  now  to  a  recon- 
sideration of  his  final  period.  Out  of  the  eleven  ex- 
tant plays  belonging  to  the  years  1 636-1 642,  only  two 
—  The  Constant  Maid  and  The  Brothers — belong  to 
the  school  in  which  Shirley  began  his  work,  the  real- 
istic school  of  Jonson  and  of  Fletcher.  Neither  of 
these,  moreover,  is  particularly  effective  work.  The 
Constant  Maid,  although  purporting  to  give  a  pic- 
ture of  London  life  and  manners,  is  interesting  only 
for  the  rather  conventional  usurer  and  country  gull, 
and  for  the  succession  of  surprises  that  constitute  the 
plot.  Were  this  frankly  a  romantic  play,  we  might 
enjoy  these  perversities  of  fortune;  but  in  a  realistic 
setting,  they  are  too  improbable  to  be  entertaining. 
The  Brothers,  although  better  than  The  Constant 
Maid,  in  that  it  has  a  fairly  clever  plot  and  a  few 
tolerably  amusing  characters,  is  saved,  after  all,  only 
by  an  infusion  of  romantic  atmosphere  and  pleasing 

[3803 


summary:  third  period 

verse — an  infusion  which,  in  view  of  the  nature  of  its 
subject,  weakens  rather  than  strengthens  its  artistic 
unity.  Whatever  merit  belongs  to  the  plays  of  Shir- 
ley's closing  period,  is  not  to  be  found  in  these  two 
comedies  of  manners. 

When,  however,  from  these  two  comedies  of  the 
realistic  school,  we  turn  to  the  nine  romantic  plays 
belonging  to  this  period,  we  find,  beside  the  nonsense 
of  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland  and  the  repulsiveness  of 
The  Gentleman  of  Venice,  a  list  of  plays  distinctly 
worth  our  reading.  The  gay  farce  of  The  Sisters; 
the  involved  plots  and  surprising  resolutions  of  the 
three  Fletcherian  dramatic  romances,  The  Doubtful 
Heir,  The  Imposture,  and  The  Court  Secret;  the 
exquisite  romantic  comedy  of  The  Royal  Master;  the 
somber  grandeur  of  The  Politician;  and,  most  nota- 
ble of  all,  the  tragic  struggle  and  well-drawn  pro- 
tagonists of  The  Traitor:  all  these  not  only  mark 
Shirley  as  a  master  playwright,  but  prove,  beyond  a 
doubt,  our  thesis  that  Shirley's  strength  and  Shirley's 
interest  lie  ultimately  not  in  the  realistic  but  in  the 
romantic  school.  He  began  his  career  as  a  follower 
of  Jonson  and  of  Fletcher  in  realism;  he  concluded 
it  as  a  follower  of  Shakspere  and  of  Fletcher  in 
romance. 


C3»i] 


CHAPTER  XIX 
CONCLUSION 

THE  endeavor  of  the  foregoing  chapters  has 
been  threefold:  first,  to  examine  the  little 
that  we  know  of  Shirley's  life,  to  deter- 
mine, fact  by  fact,  the  value  of  the  evidence,  and,  on 
a  basis  of  this  critical  examination,  to  construct  a 
chronology  more  accurate  than  has  been  hitherto 
available;  second,  on  a  basis  of  this  revised  chronol- 
ogy, to  restudy  the  dramatic  works  of  Shirley  in  order 
to  determine,  if  possible,  the  course  of  his  develop- 
ment as  a  dramatist;  and,  third,  from  this  same  exam- 
ination of  the  plays,  to  determine  the  distinctive  char- 
acteristics of  his  dramatic  works. 

Extensive  as  is  the  field  attempted,  it  covers,  after 
all,  but  a  small  portion  of  the  subject-matter  sug- 
gested by  the  title  "James  Shirley,  Dramatist."  One 
would  gladly  consider,  for  example,  not  merely  (as 
we  have  done)  the  schools  to  which  Shirley's  several 
plays  belong,  but  also  (as  we  have  done  but  rarely) 
specific  instances  of  his  indebtedness  to  specific  plays 
of  his  predecessors  and  contemporaries.1  Particularly 

1  Since  I  wrote  these  lines,  this  topic  has  been  ably  treated  in  For- 
sythc,  The  Relations  of  Shirley's  Plays  to  the  Elizabethan  Drama, 
1914. 

[3S2;] 


CONCLUSION 

interesting,  for  instance,  would  be  an  examination  of 
the  probable  influence  of  Webster  upon  Shirley's 
tragedies.  Again,  one  would  gladly  dwell  upon  the 
topic  announced,  a  dozen  years  ago,  by  Nissen:2  the 
relation  of  Shirley  to  his  sources.  Especially  would 
one  dwell  upon  his  use  of  material  from  the  Spanish, 
a  field  opened  by  Stiefel  in  his  comparison  of  The 
Opportunity  with  El  Castigo  del  Penseque  of  Tirso 
de  Molina,  and  continued  in  his  comparison  of  The 
Young  Admiral  with  Lope  de  Vega's  Don  Lope 
de  Cardona.3  Still  more  interesting  and,  I  believe, 
less  understood,  is  the  relation  of  Shirley  to  his  suc- 
cessors: the  position  of  his  comedies  of  London  life 
and  manners  as  a  link  between  Elizabethan  and 
Restoration  comedy;  and  of  his  dramatic  romances 
as  a  link  between  Fletcherian  romance  and  the 
"heroic"  plays  of  Dryden  and  of  Otway.  Ade- 
quately, however,  to  consider  any  one  of  these  three 
topics,  would  demand  a  separate  volume.  The  pres- 
ent monograph  must  be  content  to  cover  the  field 
originally  proposed:  the  chronology,  the  course  of 
development,  and  the  distinctive  characteristics  of 
the  dramatic  work  of  Shirley. 

2  Nissen,  p.  26,  note. 

3  A.  L.  Stiefel,  "Die  Nachahmung  spanischer  Komodien  in  England 
unter  den  ersten  Stuarts,"  in  Romanische  Forschungen,  v,  1890;  and 
in  Archiv  fur  das  Stadium  der  neueren  Sprachen  und  Literaturen, 
CXIX,  1907. 

[383: 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 


In  the  chronological  portion  of  our  study,  our  en- 
deavor has  been  not  so  much  to  gather  new  material 
as  to  verify  the  data  and  weigh  anew  the  inferences  of 
previous  biographers.  Important  has  it  been  to  verify 
even  their  citations  from  Herbert's  license-list,  from 
the  Stationers'  Register,  and  from  the  title-pages  of 
the  first  editions  of  the  works  of  Shirley;  for,  as  we 
have  had  occasion  frequently  to  note,  errors,  typo- 
graphical and  otherwise,  have  crept  in  and  have  been 
handed  on:  Fleay,  in  Anglia,  has  made  at  least  seven 
errors  of  mere  date,  and  Ward,  in  the  Dictionary  of 
National  Biography,  has  made  as  many  more.4  Im- 
portant also  has  it  been  to  eliminate  the  imagina- 
tive touches  that  have  appeared  even  in  articles  pur- 
porting to  be  contributions  to  exact  scholarship— the 
conjectures  of  one  biographer  that,  in  the  work  of  his 
successor,  have  strangely  been  transformed  to  cer- 
tainties—and to  distinguish,  in  the  account  of  Wood 
and  other  secondary  sources,  between  the  certain,  the 
probable,  and  the  merely  possible.  Especially  im- 
portant has  it  been  to  analyze  the  logic  of  the  argu- 
ments by  which  the  Shirleian  annalists  have  sought 
to  establish  facts  for  which  direct  evidence  is  lacking: 
to  show  wherein  they  have  established  their  hypothe- 

4  Cf.  the  list  of  misprints  under  "Fleay"  and  "Ward"  in  the  Bibli- 
ography. 

C384] 


CONCLUSION 

ses,  and  to  point  out  wherein  their  inferences  are  as 
yet  unwarranted.  By  this  twofold  process  of  verifica- 
tion and  logical  analysis,  we  have  built  up  a  Shirleian 
chronology—  differing  not  greatly  from  that  hereto- 
fore accepted;  not  final,  let  us  hope,  for  many  inter- 
esting problems  remain  yet  for  solution;  but,  at  least, 
typographically  more  accurate  and  logically  more 
circumspect  than  any  chronology  of  Shirley  previ- 
ously proposed. 

Concerning  the  private  life  of  Shirley,  our  conclu- 
sions have  been  very  largely  negative.  We  have  seen 
that  the  old-time  hypotheses  concerning  the  parentage 
of  Shirley  are  without  foundation ;  that  his  life,  from 
leaving  Merchant  Taylors'  School  in  1612  to  the  be- 
ginning of  his  dramatic  career  in  1625,  is  a  subject 
of  which  we  know  with  certainty  almost  nothing— 
unless  we  accept  as  certain  the  unsupported  statements 
of  Anthony  a  Wood,  a  generation  subsequent  to  Shir- 
ley's death;  that,  in  view  of  the  distinction  between 
Beeston's  "Queen's  men"  of  Drury  Lane  and  Tur- 
ner's "Queen's  men"  of  Salisbury  Court  of  later  date, 
Shirley's  alleged  quarrel  with  the  latter,  upon  his 
return  from  Ireland  in  1640,  is  wholly  mythical;  that 
concerning  his  service  under  Newcastle,  we  have  no 
reliable  details:  in  short,  that  our  certain  knowledge 
of  the  private  life  of  Shirley  is  limited,  except  for  an 
occasional  allusion  in  his  dedications,  to  the  contents 

C385] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

of  five  documents:  the  record  of  the  christening  of 
"James  the  sonne  of  James  Sharlie"  and  other  entries 
referring  to  their  family,  in  the  register  of  St.  Mary 
Woolchurch;  the  probation  register  of  Merchant 
Taylors'  School;  the  record  of  the  christening  of 
"Mathias,  sonne  of  Mr.  James  Shurley,  gentleman" 
at  St.  Giles  without  Cripplegate;  Shirley's  will 
—  a  document  significant  not  only  for  the  extensive 
bequests  which  it  records  but  also  for  its  specific  men- 
tion of  Mathias  as  Shirley's  eldest  son;  and,  finally, 
the  passage  in  the  burial  register  of  St.  Giles  in  the 
Fields  for  October  29,  1666. 

With  regard,  however,  to  Shirley's  life  as  drama- 
tist, we  have  abundant  data.  Malone,  in  his  extracts 
from  the  office-book  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  Master  of 
the  Revels,  has  preserved  an  almost  complete  list  of 
the  dates  when  Shirley's  plays  were  licensed  for  pres- 
entation. The  dates  on  which  his  plays  and  other 
works  were  entered  for  publication  are  accessible  in 
Arber's  excellent  transcript  of  the  Stationers'  Regis- 
ter. The  dates  of  actual  publication,  the  names  of 
the  companies  by  whom  the  dramas  were  presented, 
and  many  other  facts  of  consequence,  are  preserved 
to  us  on  the  title-pages  of  the  works  themselves;  and 
the  lists  of  published  works  appended  to  The  Maid's 
Revenge,  1639,  and  to  The  Cardinal,  1652,  warrant 
the  belief  that  all  the  works  actually  published,  ex- 

[386] 


CONCLUSION 

cept  the  first  edition  of  Echo  and  Narcissus,  have 
survived.  The  most  important  of  the  questions  in  dis- 
pute—the truth  of  Fleay's  hypothesis  that  The  Bro- 
thers of  1652  is  identical  not  with  The  Brothers  of 
1626  but  with  The  Politique  Father  of  1641,  has  been 
determined,  conclusively  I  trust,  by  Nissen's  argu- 
ment from  the  dedication  to  Thomas  Stanley,  Esq., 
and  by  the  extract  (first  published  in  the  present 
monograph)  from  Moseley's  catalogue  in  the  Hoe 
copy  of  the  Six  New  Playes.  In  short,  for  our  pur- 
posed study  of  Shirley's  development  as  a  dramatist, 
our  chronology  of  his  works  is  practically  complete. 

II 

Having  thus  determined,  so  far  as  available  evidence 
permits,  the  chronology  of  Shirley's  life  and  works, 
we  endeavored,  secondly,  to  ascertain  the  course  of 
Shirley's  development  as  a  dramatist.  In  the  plays 
of  Shirley,  we  distinguished  two  broad  types:  first, 
that  in  which  Shirley's  work  is  to  be  classed  with  the 
realistic  plays  of  Fletcher  and  of  Jonson ;  and,  second, 
that  in  which  it  is  to  be  classed  with  the  romantic 
plays  of  Fletcher  and  of  Shakspere.  The  emphasis 
given  by  some  editors  and  critics  to  The  Witty  Fair 
One,  Hyde  Park,  The  Gamester,  and  The  Lady  of 
Pleasure  has  at  times  given  the  impression  that  Shir- 

D873 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ley  was  chiefly  a  writer  of  comedy  of  manners— and 
of  manners  most  repulsive.  How  far  from  accurate 
is  this  impression  will  appear  from  a  recapitulation 
of  our  critical  survey. 

In  what  we  have  called  his  first  dramatic  period— 
from  1625  to  1632 — the  work  of  Shirley  was,  indeed, 
chiefly  realistic.  Three  and  a  half  plays  of  this  pe- 
riod may  be  counted  on  the  romantic  side:  The 
Maid's  Revenge  and  The  Traitor  are  romantic  trag- 
edies; The  Grateful  Servant  is  romantic  comedy ;  and 
Love  Tricks,  or  The  School  of  Complement  is  in  part 
romantic,  especially  in  the  pastoral  scenes.  But 
against  these  must  be  reckoned  seven  and  a  half  plays 
belonging  to  the  realistic  school.  At  least  half  of 
Love  Tricks,  and  practically  all  of  The  Wedding, 
The  Witty  Fair  One,  The  Humorous  Courtier, 
Love's  Cruelty,  Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  Hyde 
Park,  and  The  Ball,  are  realistic.  Moreover,  were 
we  to  accept  the  old  assumption  (which  I  trust  we 
have  refuted)  that  the  play  published  as  The  Bro- 
thers in  1652  is  identical  with  the  play  licensed  under 
that  title  in  1626,  we  should  but  strengthen  our  gen- 
eralization that  Shirley  began  his  career  as  a  fol- 
lower of  the  realistic  school  of  Jonson  and  of 
Fletcher. 

In  Shirley's  second  dramatic  period,  however,  this 
proportion  of  three  and  a  half  romantic  plays  to  seven 

C388] 


CONCLUSION 

and  a  half  realistic  plays  is  practically  reversed.  In 
this  period  from  1632  to  1636,  only  three  plays—  The 
Gamester,  The  Example,  and  The  Lady  of  Pleasure 
—  can  be  counted  as  realistic;  the  other  six—  The  Ar- 
cadia, The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  The  Young  Admiral,  The 
Opportunity,  The  Coronation,  and  The  Duke's  Mis- 
tress—are romantic.  Were  we  to  include  in  our  esti- 
mate, Chabot,  Admiral  of  France,  which  we  have 
concluded  to  be  primarily  by  Chapman,  we  should 
have,  for  this  second  period,  a  total  of  seven  romantic 
plays  against  but  three  that  are  realistic. 

Shirley's  growing  interest  in  the  romantic  field, 
made  evident  by  our  summary  thus  far,  is  confirmed 
by  our  examination  of  his  remaining  work— his  plays 
from  his  departure  for  Ireland  in  1636  to  the  closing 
of  the  theaters  in  1642.  Of  the  eleven  extant  plays 
that  we  have  assigned  to  this  his  final  period,  only 
two — The  Constant  Maid  and  The  Brothers — are 
realistic ;  and,  strangely  enough,  were  we  seeking  only 
to  demonstrate  our  thesis,  we  could  find  some  ground 
for  assigning  these  two  plays  not  to  the  final  but  to 
the  earliest  period.  The  Constant  Maid  was  entered 
in  the  Stationers'  Register  on  April  28,  1640;  but  the 
date  of  its  composition  is  unknown,  and  internal  evi- 
dence would  place  it  in  Shirley's  period  of  appren- 
ticeship. The  Brothers  of  1652,  which  we  have  iden- 
tified with  The  Politique  Father  of  1641,  most  critics 

[389] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

have  been  content  to  identify  with  The  Brothers  of 
1626.  However  this  may  be,  the  other  plays  that  we 
have  assigned  to  Shirley's  final  period  are  all  roman- 
tic—  The  Royal  Master,  The  Gentleman  of  Venice, 
The  Politician,  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland,  The  Doubt- 
ful Heir,  The  Imposture,  The  Cardinal,  The  Sisters, 
and  The  Court  Secret — nine  plays  against  a  probable 
two. 

To  take  too  literally  and  too  absolutely  the  figures 
in  the  preceding  paragraphs,  would  be  unfortunate. 
The  exact  division  between  realism  and  romanticism 
is  difficult  to  make;  and  some  critics,  as  we  have 
noted,  divide  the  plays  a  little  differently.  With  this 
qualification,  however,  it  is  useful  to  express  in  defi- 
nite figures  our  impressions  of  the  course  of  Shirley's 
development  as  a  dramatist.  Stated  in  tabular  form, 
they  are  as  follows: 

PLAYS  PLAYS 

PERIOD  PRIMARILY  PRIMARILY 

ROMANTIC  REALISTIC 

First:  1625-1632  zV-2.  l]/2 

Second:        1 632-1 636  6  3 

Third:         1 636-1 642  9  2 


Totals  18^  \2y2 

For  the  popular  impression  that  Shirley  is  primarily 
a  realistic  dramatist,  these  totals,  regardless  of  chro- 
nology, should  have  been  sufficient  refutation;  but 
when  we  see  from  our  classification  by  periods,  that 

[39o] 


CONCLUSION 

at  least  sixty  per  cent,  of  Shirley's  realistic  work  falls 
in  the  first  seven  years  of  his  career,  the  refutation 
becomes  overwhelming.  Shirley  began  his  work  as 
playwright  as  a  realist;  but  the  direction  of  his  devel- 
opment was  toward  the  romantic  school:  from  Jon- 
sonian  and  Fletcherian  comedy  of  manners  and  of 
humors,  he  passed  to  Fletcherian  and  Shaksperean 
romantic  comedy,  dramatic  romance,  and  romantic 
tragedy. 


Ill 


BESIDES  reconstructing  the  chronology  of  Shirley's 
life  and  work,  and  tracing  the  course  of  his  develop- 
ment as  a  dramatist,  we  have  endeavored  in  our  study 
to  give  some  impressions  of  the  characteristics  of  his 
drama.  These  characteristics  we  can  best  review  by 
regrouping  his  plays  under  the  two  heads  already 
indicated. 

As  a  follower  of  the  realistic  school  of  Jonson  and 
of  Fletcher,  Shirley's  material  is  twofold:  true  but 
satiric  pictures  of  the  life  of  court  and  town;  and 
the  exaggerated  sketches  that  we  know  technically 
as  "characters  of  humor."  Citizen  life  appears  most 
fully  in  The  Constant  Maid,  in  Hyde  Park,  and  in 
The  Gamester,  and  life  in  somewhat  higher  circles 
in  The  Witty  Fair  One,  The  Wedding,  The  Ball, 

C390 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  The  Lady  of  Pleasure, 
and  The  Example.  To  the  same  group,  despite  their 
nominally  Portuguese  and  Italian  settings,  belong 
The  Brothers  of  1652,  which  we  have  identified  with 
The  Politique  Father,  and  Love's  Cruelty,  a  tragedy 
of  adultery,  which,  notwithstanding  the  presence  of 
a  duke  of  Ferrara  and  his  court,  is  at  most  no  more 
romantic  than  The  Example.  Socially,  these  plays 
present  at  times  the  commonness  of  Middleton,  at 
times  the  gentlehood  of  Fletcher.  Morally  they  vary 
from  the  repulsiveness  of  Jonson  at  his  worst  to  the 
V  wholesomeness  of  Shakspere  at  his  best.  Often  offen- 
sive to  our  modern  taste,  they  are  not  always  immoral 
in  their  influence:  The  Lady  of  Pleasure  is  a  stinging 
satire  against  extravagance,  gaming,  drunkenness, 
and  licentiousness;  Love's  Cruelty  and  The  Example 
preach  even  more  eloquently  of  chastity  and  true 
nobility. 

Yet  not  alone  as  true  pictures  of  the  life  of  the 
court  and  town  do  these  plays  attest  the  influence  of 
Jonson  and  his  fellow  realists:  in  these  comedies  of 
manners— and  in  many  a  romantic  play  as  well- 
Shirley  has  inserted  "characters  of  humor."  Jacomo 
of  The  Grateful  Servant,  Bombo  of  The  Royal 
Master,  Piperollo  of  The  Sisters,  Young  Barnacle 
of  The  Gamester,  Hornet  and  Startup  of  The  Con- 
stant Maid,  Rawbone  and  Lodam  of  The  Wedding, 

[392] 


CONCLUSION 

Depazzi  of  The  Traitor,  Bubulcus  of  Love  Tricks, 
Sir  Gervase  Simple  and  Caperwit  of  Changes,  or 
Love  in  a  Maze,  Sir  Nicholas  Treedle  and  the 
omniscient  Brains  of  The  Witty  Fair  One,  Orseolo 
and  others  of  The  Humorous  Courtier,  Jack  Fresh- 
water, Bostock,  Barker,  and  Monsieur  Le  Frisk 
of  The  Ball,  Vainman,  Pumicestone,  Oldrat,  Dor- 
mant, of  The  Example,  and,  best  of  all,  in  the  same 
play,  Sir  Solitary  Plot:  each,  to  use  the  definition  of 
Dryden,  is  the  embodiment  of  "some  extravagant 
habit,  passion,  or  affection  ...  by  the  oddness  of 
which  he  is  immediately  distinguished  from  the  rest 
of  men";5  each  illustrates  the  wealth  of  adapta- 
tion and  creation  of  Shirley's  "characters  of  humor." 

Yet  not  in  realism— whether  "humorous"  or  satiric 
—  but  in  romance,  did  Shirley  do  his  most  distinctive 
work:  in  dramatic  romance,  in  romantic  comedy,  and 
in  romantic  tragedy. 

Dramatic  romance— distinguished  from  romantic 
comedy  chiefly  by  stress  upon  surprising  revelations 
of  the  plot  rather  than  upon  the  depiction  or  develop- 
ment of  character— is  Shirley's  most  frequent,  though 
not  most  fruitful  field.  It  is,  moreover,  the  type  in 
which  Shirley's  work  most  closely  approximates  the 
work  of  Fletcher.    Slightly  suggested  in  the  masque 

5  Of  Dramatick  Poesie,  an  Essay.  By  John  Dryden,  Esq.  .  .  . 
1668,  in  Ker,  Essays  of  John  Dryden,  I,  85. 

[393] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

and  pastoral  element  of  Love  Tricks,  in  the  maiden- 
page  of  The  Wedding,  and  in  the  miracles  of  St.  Pat- 
rick for  Ireland,  this  Fletcherian  type  is  thoroughly 
exemplified  in  the  oracle,  the  disguises,  and  the  sur- 
prising denouement  of  The  Arcadia;  in  the  incog- 
nito, the  extravagance,  and  the  startling  resolution  of 
The  Bird  in  a  Cage;  in  the  concealed  identity  and 
kaleidoscopic  changes  of  The  Coronation;  in  the 
exchanged  positions  of  Giovanni  and  Thomazo  in 
The  Gentleman  of  Venice;  in  the  shifting  love,  the 
maiden-page,  and  the  successive  revolutions  of  The 
Doubtful  Heir;  and,  finally,  in  the  blending  of  sur- 
prise and  of  suspense  in  the  double  imposture  of  The 
Court  Secret.  Slight  as  several  of  these  romances  are, 
they  are  lacking  neither  in  interest  nor  in  poetic 
charm.  At  their  best,  they  have  a  tensity  of  climax 
and  an  unexpectedness  of  outcome  that  hold  one 
breathless.  Whatever  their  weaknesses,  they  demon- 
strate at  least  Shirley's  mastery  of  romantic  plot. 

Differing  from  the  dramatic  romances  by  virtue  of 
attention  rather  to  character  than  to  plot,  the  seven 
romantic  comedies  of  Shirley  may  be  further  divided 
into  three  groups.  The  Sisters  and  The  Opportunity 
are  fun  run  mad;  The  Duke's  Mistress,  on  the  other 
hand,  and,  to  a  less  degree,  The  Imposture  and  The 
Young  Admiral,  are  highly  serious  and  almost 
tragic;  and  between  these  two  extremes  is  a  third 

[394] 


CONCLUSION 

group,  characterized  neither  by  laughter  nor  by 
death,  but  rather  by  exquisite  delicacy  of  sentiment 
and  of  poetic  charm:  The  Grateful  Servant  and  The 
Royal  Master.  And  what  a  delightful  gallery  of 
character  these  seven  comedies  present!  The  bold 
bandit  Frapolo  masquerading  as  Farnese,  Prince  of 
Parma;  his  haughty  bride,  Paulina,  brought  low  by 
the  revelation  of  her  birth;  Aurelio  Andreozzi  of 
Milan  mistaken  in  Urbino  for  the  banished  Borgia, 
loving  and  beloved  by  both  Cornelia  and  the  duchess, 
yet  unable  to  seize  his  "opportunity"  in  either  suit; 
Ardelia  of  The  Duke's  Mistress;  Juliana  of  The  Im- 
posture; Vittori  of  The  Young  Admiral,  and,  with 
him,  Cassandra,  Cesario,  and  Rosinda;  Princess  Leo- 
nora of  The  Grateful  Servant,  with  Foscari  and 
Cleona;  and,  best  of  all,  the  king,  Montalto,  Octavio, 
and  little  Domitilla  of  The  Royal  Master:  these  are 
characters  worthy  of  our  acquaintance— and  remem- 
brance. In  these  romantic  comedies,  Shirley  pro- 
duces something  different  from — and  better  than — 
his  Fletcherian  romances. 

Least  numerous,  least  representative  of  the  work  of 
Shirley,  least  adequate— if  tried  by  the  standard  of 
the  best  that  the  English  drama  has  produced— and 
yet,  in  themselves,  notable  contributions  to  that 
drama,  are  his  romantic  tragedies.  Of  these,  The 
Maid's  Revenge  is  admittedly  least  worthy;  yet,  with 

Z39S1 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

its  struggle  between  love  and  filial  duty,  its  wholesale 
slaughter,  and  its  pathetic  maiden-page,  this  play,  the 
second  that  Shirley  dedicated  to  the  stage,  is  no  mean 
production  for  the  youthful  dramatist.  Chabot,  with 
its  fine  unity  and  its  sympathetic  characterization,  we 
must  not  claim  for  Shirley,  for  we  know  not  how  far 
he  collaborated  with  Chapman  in  the  drama.  The 
Politician,  however,  somber  in  subject,  powerful  in 
scene,  mighty  in  its  protagonist,  Marpisa,  is  a  tragedy 
worthy  of  any  but  the  greatest  dramatist.  Finally, 
most  powerful  if  not  most  pleasing  of  all  the  plays  of 
Shirley,  stand  his  two  tragedies,  The  Traitor  and  The 
Cardinal :  the  former  masterly  in  plot  and  more  than 
masterly  in  characterization;  the  latter  masterly  in 
character-delineation,  but  especially  notable  for  man- 
agement of  plot.  For,  as  the  contest  between  the 
duchess  and  the  cardinal,  with  its  climax  of  madness, 
of  poison,  and  of  slaughter,  is  a  struggle  almost  Web- 
sterian  in  its  piteous  horror,  so,  in  The  Traitor,  the 
villainy  of  Lorenzo,  the  virtuous  suffering  of  Ami- 
dea,  and  the  noble  vengeance  of  Sciarrha,  make  these 
characters  a  permanent  contribution  to  our  English 
tragedy. 

Such  was  James  Shirley,  in  life,  in  development, 
and  in  achievement:  in  life,  a  man  of  whose  personal 
career  we  can  establish  little,  but  of  whose  literary 
chronology  we  have  recorded  much;  in  development, 

[396] 


CONCLUSION 

a  convert  from  realism  to  romanticism;  in  achieve- 
ment, a  dramatist  who,  inheriting  the  best  that  his 
predecessors— Jonson,  Fletcher,  Shakspere — had  to 
offer,  combined  their  methods  and  their  materials 
into  a  body  of  plays  well  worth  our  study.  Let  us  dis- 
miss him,  therefore,  as  we  introduced  him,  neither 
with  the  sometimes  excessive  commendation  nor  with 
the  frequently  ill-founded  disparagement  of  Swin- 
burne, but  with  the  modest  praise  of  Milton's  nephew, 
Phillips:  "James  Shirley,  a  just  pretender  to  more 
than  the  meanest  place  among  the  English  poets,  but 
most  especially  for  Dramatic  Poesy,  in  which  he  hath 
wrritten  both  very  much,  and  for  the  most  part  with 
that  felicity  that  by  some  he  is  accounted  little  in- 
ferior to  Fletcher  himself."6 

6  Phillips,  Theatrum  Poetarum,  1675,  pp.  80-81. 


[397] 


ANNOTATED  BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Part  I 

THE  PUBLISHED  WORKS  OF  JAMES  SHIRLEY, 
CHRONOLOGICALLY  ARRANGED 

Shirley,  James.  1618. 

Eccho,  or  the  Infortunate  Lovers,  a  poem,  by  James  Sherley, 

Cant,  in  Art.  Bacc.    Lond.     1618.    8vo. 

Primum  hunc  Arethusa,  mihi  concede  laborem. 

Thus,  in  Censura  Literaria,  II,  382,  Samuel  Egerton  Brydges  quotes  the 
title-page  of  Shirley's  earliest  work,  "from  a  Ms.  note  to  Astle's  copy  of 
Wood's  Athena."  As  no  copy  of  this  edition  of  Eccho  has  survived,  we 
cannot  judge  of  the  accuracy  of  the  transcript.  In  the  Stationers'  Regis- 
ter, the  entry  is  as  follows:  "4  Januarij  1617  [i.e.,  1617/18].  Ecc[h~\o  and 
Narcissus  the  2  Vnfortunate  Louers  written  by  Jeames  Sherley."  See  S.  R., 
HI,  286. 

Shirley,  James.  1629. 

The  Wedding.  As  it  was  lately  Acted  by  her  Maiesties  Ser- 
uants,  at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  By  lames  Shirley, 
Gent.  Horat. — Multaq;  pars  mei  Vitabit  Libitinam — London. 
Printed  for  Iohn  Groue,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  Furni- 
ualls  Inne  Gate  in  Holborne.     1629. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1630. 

The  Gratefvll  Servant.  A  Comedie.  As  it  was  lately  presented 
with  good  applause  at  the  priuate  House  in  Drury-Lane,  By  her 
Majesties  Servants.  Written  by  lames  Shirley  Gent. — Vsque  ego 
postera  Crescam  laude  recens.  London.  Printed  by  B.  A.  and 
T.  F.  for  John  Groue,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  Furnivals- 
Inne  gate,  1630. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

[401] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Shirley,  James.  1631. 

The  Schoole  of  Complement.  As  it  was  acted  by  her  Maiesties 
Seruants  at  the  Priuate  house  in  Drury  Lane. — Hsc  placuit  semel. 
— By  J.  S.  London,  Printed  by  E.  A.  for  Francis  Constable,  and 
are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  in  Pauls  Church-yard,  at  the  signe  of  the 
Crane.     1 63 1. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1632. 

Changes :  or,  Love  in  a  Maze.  A  Comedie,  As  it  was  presented 
at  the  Private  House  in  Salisbury  Court,  by  the  Company  of  His 

Majesties  Revels.    Written  by  lames  Shirley,  Gent. Deserta 

per  avia  dulcis  Raptat  Amor.  London:  Printed  by  G.  P.  for 
William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  neere  Furnivals  Inne 
gate  in  Holborne,  1632. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1633. 

The  Wedding.  As  it  was  lately  Acted  by  her  Maiesties  Ser- 
uants, at  the  Phenix  in  Drury-Lane.  Written  by  lames  Shirley, 
Gent.  Horat. — Multaq,  pars  mei  Vitabit  Libitinam —  London; 
Printed  for  Iohn  Groue,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  in  Chan- 
cery-Lane, neere  the  Rowles,  ouer  against  the  Suppeny-Office. 
1633- 

Second  edition.     From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1633. 

A  Contention  for  Honovr  and  Riches.  By  J.  S. — ubi  quid 
datur  oti,  illudo  chartis —  London,  Printed  by  E.  A.  for  William 
Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  neere  Furnivals  Inne  gate  in 
Holborne.     1633. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1633. 

The  Wittie  Faire  One.     A  Comedie.     As  it  was  presented  at 


bibliography:  part  i 

the  Private  House  in  Drvry  Lane.  By  her  Maiesties  Servants. 
By  lames  Shirley.  .  .  .  London  Printed  by  B.  A.  and  T.  F.  for 
Wil.  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop,  neere  Furnivals-Inne 
Gate,  in  Holborne.     1633. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1633. 

The  Bird  in  a  Cage.  A  Comedie.  As  it  hath  beene  Presented 
at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury-Lane.  The  Author  lames  Shirley,  Ser- 
vant to  Her  Majesty.  Iuven.  Satyra.  7.  Et  Spes,  &  ratio  Stu- 
diorum,  in  Cassare  tantum.  London  Printed  by  B.  Alsop.  and  T. 
Fawcet.  for  William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  neere 
Furnivals-Inne  Gate,  in  Holborne.     1633. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1633/34- 

The  Trivmph  of  Peace.  A  Masque,  presented  by  the  Foure  Hon- 
ourable Houses,  or  Innes  of  Court.  Before  the  King  and  Queenes 
Majesties,  in  the  Banquetting-house  at  White  Hall,  February  the 
third,  1633.  Invented  and  Written,  By  James  Shirley,  of  Grayes 
Inne,  Gent.  Primum  hunc  Arethusa  mihi—  London,  Printed 
by  Iohn  Norton,  for  William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop, 
neere  Furnivals-Inne-gate,  in  Holborne.  1633. 
From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1635. 

The  Traytor.     A  Tragedie,  written  by  lames  Shirley.     Acted 

By  her  Majesties  Servants.    London:  Printed  for  William  Cooke, 

and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  at  Furnivals  Inne-gate  in  Holborne. 

1635. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1637. 

The  Lady  of  Pleasvre.     A  Comedie,  As  it  was  Acted  by  her 

Majesties  Servants,  at  the  private  House  in  Drury  Lane.    Written 

C403H 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

by  James  Shirly.     London,  Printed  by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew 
Crooke,  and  William  Cooke.     1637. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1637. 

Hide  Parke  a  comedie,  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Majesties  Ser- 
vants, at  the  private  house  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by  James 
Shirly.  London,  Printed  by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and 
William  Cooke.     1637. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1637. 

The  Yovng  Admirall.     As  it  was  presented  By  her  Majesties 

Servants,  at  the  private  house  in  Drury  Lane.    Written  by  James 

Shirly.     London,  Printed  by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and 

William  Cooke.     1637. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  author  of  the  present  study,  identical, 
as  to  title-page,  with  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1637. 

The  Example.  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Majesties  Servants 
At  the  private  House  in  Drury-Lane.  Written  by  lames  Shirly. 
London.  Printed  by  Iohn  Norton,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  Wil- 
liam Cooke.     1637. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1637. 

The  Gamester.  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Majesties  Servants 
At  the  private  House  in  Drury-Lane.  Written  By  lames  Shirly. 
London.  Printed  by  Iohn  Norton,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  Wil- 
liam Cooke.     1637. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1637. 

The  Schoole  of  Complement.    As  it  was  acted  by  her  Majesties 

[404] 


bibliography:  part  i 

Servants  at  the  Private  house  in  Drury  Lane.— Haec  placuit  semel. 
By  I.  S.  London.  Printed  By  I.  H.  for  Francis  Constable,  and 
are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  under  Saint  Martins  Church  neere  Lud- 
gate.     1637. 

The  second  edition.  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe, 
Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1637. 

The  Gratefvll  Servant.    A  Comedie.    As  it  was  lately  presented 

with  good  applause  in  the  private  House  in  Drury-Lane.     By  her 

Majesties  Servants.    Written  by  James  Shirley  Gent.— Usque  ego 

postera  Crescam  laude  recens.     London:  Printed  by  I.  Okes  for 

William  Leake,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  in  Chancery-lane 

neere  the  Roules.     1637. 

The  second  edition.  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe, 
Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1638. 

The  Royall  Master;  As  it  was  Acted  in  the  new  Theater  in 
Dublin:  and  Before  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lord  Deputie  of 
Ireland,  in  the  Castle.  Written  by  lames  Shirley.  — Fas  extera 
quaerere  regna.  Printed  by  T.  Cotes,  and  are  to  be  sold  by  Thomas 
Allot  and  Edmond  Crooke,  neare  the  Castle  in  Dublin.     1638. 

The  Irish  issue  of  the  first  edition.  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late 
Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1638. 

The  Royall  Master;  As  it  was  Acted  in  the  new  Theater  in 
Dublin:  and  Before  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lord  Deputie  of 
Ireland,  in  the  Castle.  Written  by  lames  Shirley — Fas  extera 
quaerere  regna.  London,  Printed  by  T.  Cotes,  and  are  to  be  sold 
by  Iohn  Crooke,  and  Richard  Serger,  at  the  Grayhound  in  Pauls 
Church-yard.     1638. 

The  English  issue  of  the  first  edition.  From  the  copy  belonging  to  the 
late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

[405] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Shirley,  James.  1638. 

The  Dvkes  Mistris,  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Majesties  Ser- 
vants, At  the  private  House  in  Drury-Lane.  Written  by  lames 
Shirly.  London,  Printed  by  John  Norton,  for  William  Cooke, 
1638. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1639. 

The  Ball:  a  Comedy;  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Majesties 
Servants,  at  the  private  House  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by  George 
Chapman,  and  James  Shirly.  London,  Printed  by  Tho.  Cotes, 
for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke.     1639. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  643.  d.  2. 

Shirley,  James  (and  Chapman,  George).  1639. 

The  Tragedie  of  Chabot  Admirall  of  France:  As  it  was  pre- 
sented by  her  Majesties  Servants,  at  the  private  House  in  Drury 
Lane.  Written  by  George  Chapman,  and  James  Shirly.  London, 
Printed  by  The  Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke. 
1639. 

From  the  facsimile  title-page  in  Lehman's  edition,  1906. 

Shirley,  James.  1639. 

The  Maides  Revenge.  A  Tragedy.  As  it  hath  beene  Acted 
with  good  Applause  at  the  private  house  in  Drury  Lane,  by  her 
Majesties  Servants.  Written  by  lames  Shirley  Gent.  London. 
Printed  by  T.  C.  for  William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop 
at  Furnivalls  Inne  Gate  in  Holbourne.     1639. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1640. 

The  Hvmorovs  Covrtier.    A  Comedy,  As  it  hath  been  presented 

with  good  applause  at  the  private  house  in  Drury-Lane.     Written 

by  lames  Shirley  Gent.     London.     Printed  by  T.  C.  for  William 

C4o6] 


bibliography:  PART  I 

Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  by  James  Becket,  in  the  Inner  Temple. 
1640. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1640. 

Loves  Crveltie.  A  Tragedy,  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Maj- 
esties Servants,  at  the  private  House  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by 
James  Shirley  Gent.  London,  Printed  by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew 
Crooke.     1640. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1640. 

A  Pastorall  called  the  Arcadia.  Acted  by  her  Majesties  Ser- 
vants at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by  lames  Shirly 
Gent.  London,  Printed  by  I.  D.  for  Iohn  Williams,  and  F. 
Eglesfeild  and  are  to  be  sould  at  the  signe  of  the  Crane  in  Pauls 
Church-yard.     1640. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1640. 

The  Opportvnitie  a  comedy,  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Maj- 
esties Servants ;  at  the  private  House  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by 
lames  Shirley.  London.  Printed  by  Thomas  Cotes  for  Andrew 
Crooke,  and  Will.  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  the  Signe  of  the 
Greene  Dragon  in  Pauls  Church-yard.     1640. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  author  of  the  present  study,  identical, 
as  to  title-page,  with  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  [1640.] 

The  Opportvnitie  a  comedy,  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Maj- 
esties Servants,  at  the  private  House  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by 
lames  Shirley.  London.  Printed  by  Thomas  Cotes  for  Andrew 
Crooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  the  Signe  of  the  Greene  Dragon  in 
Pauls  Church-yard,     [n.d.] 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq.  Described  in 
his  Catalogue  of  Early  English  Books,  iv,  161,  as  "The  sheets  of  the  1640 
edition  reissued,  with  the  imprint  alone  altered.  Collation:  The  same  as 
the  first  edition." 

[407] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Shirley,  James.  1640. 

The  Coronation  a  comedy.  As  it  was  presented  by  her  Maj- 
esties Servants  at  the  private  House  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by 
John  Fletcher.  Gent.  London,  Printed  by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  An- 
drew Crooke,  and  William  Cooke,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  the  signe 
of  the  Greene  Dragon,  in  Pauls  Church-yard.    1640. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

The  publication  of  this  play  with  Fletcher's  name  upon  the  title-page, 
was  made  during  Shirley's  absence  in  Ireland.  That  it  is  Shirley's,  how- 
ever, there  can  be  no  doubt:  it  was  licensed  as  Shirley's  February  6, 
1634/5;  and  it  was  publicly  reclaimed  by  Shirley  in  "A  Catalogue  of  the 
Authors  Poems  already  Printed,"  appended  to  The  Cardinal,  1652  (in  Six 
Neiv  Playes,  1653),  in  the  following  words:  "The  Coronation.  Falsely 
ascribed  to  Jo.  Fletcher." 

Shirley,  James.  1640. 

St.  Patrick  for  Ireland.     The  first  Part.     Written  by  James 
Shirley.    London,  Printed  by  J.  Raworth,  for  R.  Whitaker.    1640. 
From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  .     1640. 

The  Constant  Maid.  A  Comedy.  Written  by  James  Shirley. 
London,  Printed  by  J.  Raworth,  for  R.  Whitaker.     1640. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James,  reviser.  1640. 

The  Night  Walker  or  the  Little  Theife.    A  Comedy,  As  it  was 

presented  by  her   Majesties   Servants,   at  the   Private   House  in 

Drury  Lane.    Written  by  John  Fletcher.  Gent.    London,  Printed 

by  Tho.  Cotes,  for  Andrew  Crooke,  and  William  Cooke.     1640. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  644.  e.  3. 
A  play  of  Fletcher's  revised  by  Shirley. 

Shirley,  James.  1646. 

Poems   &c.    By   James   Shirley.      Sine   aliqua   dementia   nullus 

Phncbus.     London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Moseley,  and  are  to  be 


bibliography:  part  i 

sold  at  his  shop  at  the  signe  of  the  Princes  Armes  in  St.  Pauls 
Church-yard.     1646. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

The  frontispiece  is  the  same  engraving  of  Shirley  that  again  appears 
in  Six  Ne<w  Playes,  1653,  a  portrait  marked  "W.  Marshall  sculpsit,  1646." 
Further  on,  some  one  has  inserted  in  this  copy  the  portrait  of  Shirley 
marked:  "Iacobus  Shirlaeus,"  "G.  Phenik  pinx.,"  "R.  Gaywood  fecit, 
1658."  After  the  first  80  pages,  the  numbering  begins  anew  with  the 
following  title-page: 

Narcissus,  or,  The  Self-Lover.  By  James  Shirley.  Hasc  olim— 
London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Moseley,  and  are  to  be  sold  at 
his  shop  at  the  signe  of  the  Princes  Armes  in  St.  Pauls  Church- 
yard.   MDCXLVI. 

Of  this  part,  the  page-numbers  run,  1-46,  and  then  147-159.  Begin- 
ning p.  35,  are  "Prologues  and  Epilogues;  written  to  severall  Playes  Pre- 
sented in  this  Kingdom,  and  elsewhere."  Then,  with  new  pagination, 
follows: 

The  Trivmph  of  Beavtie.  As  it  was  personated  by  some  young 
Gentlemen,  for  whom  it  was  intended,  at  a  private  Recreation. 
By  James  Shirley.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Mosely,  and 
are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop,  at  the  Signe  of  the  Princes  Armes  in  St. 
Pauls  Churchyard.    MDCXLVI. 

Shirley,  James.  1647- 

To  the  Reader. 

An  address  prefixed  to: 

Comedies  and  Tragedies  Written  by  Francis  Beavmont  And 
Iohn  Fletcher  Gentlemen.  Never  printed  before,  And  now  pub- 
lished by  the  Authours  Originall  Copies.  Si  quid  habent  veri 
Vatum  praesagia,  vivam.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robin- 
son, at  the  three  Pidgeons,  and  for  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the 
Princes  Armes  in  St  Pauls  Church-yard.     1647. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  Ernest  Dressel  North,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1649. 

Via  ad  Latinam  Linguam  Complanata.     The  Way  made  plain 

[409] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

to  the  Latine  Tongue.  The  Rules  composed  in  English  and  Latine 
Verse:  For  the  greater  Delight  and  Benefit  of  Learners.  By 
James  Shirley.  Avia  Pieridum  peragro  loca.  Lucret.  London, 
Printed  by  R.  W.  for  John  Stephenson,  at  the  signe  of  the  Sun  on 
Ludgate-Hill.     1649. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1653. 

Six  New  Playes,  Viz.  The  Brothers.  Sisters.  Doubtfull  Heir. 
Imposture.  Cardinall.  Court  Secret.  The  Five  first  were  acted 
at  the  Private  House  in  Black  Fryers  with  great  Applause.  The 
last  was  never  Acted.  All  Written  by  James  Shirley.  Never 
printed  before.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the 
Three  Pigeons,  and  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Armes  in 
St.  Paul's  Curch-yard,  1653. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  author  of  the  present  study,  identical, 
as  to  title-pages,  with  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Facing  the  joint  title-page,  as  frontispiece,  is  an  engraving  of  Shirley 
(identical  with  that  previously  prefixed  to  the  Poems)  signed  "W.  Mar- 
shall sculpsit,  1646."    The  title-pages  of  the  several  plays  are  as  follows: 

The  Brothers,  A  Comedie,  As  It  was  Acted  at  the  private  House 
in  Black  Fryers.  Written  By  James  Shirley.  Never  Printed  before. 
London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the  Three  Pigeons, 
and  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince  Armes  in  St.  Paul's  Church- 
yard.    1652. 

The  Sisters,  A  Comedie,  As  It  was  acted  at  the  private  House 
in  Black  Fryers,  Written  By  James  Shirley.  Never  Printed  before. 
London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the  Three  Pigeons, 
and  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Arms  in  St.  Paul's  Church- 
yard.    1652. 

The  Doubtful  Heir.  A  Tragi-comedie,  As  It  was  Acted  at  the 
private  House  in  Black  Friers,  Written  By  James  Shirley.  Never 
Printed  before.     London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the 

[410] 


bibliography:  part  i 

three  Pigeons,  and  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Arms  in 
St.  Paul's  Church-yard.     1652. 

The  Impostvre  A  Tragi-Comedie,  As  It  was  Acted  at  the  pri- 
vate House  in  Black  Fryers.  Written  By  James  Shirley.  Never 
Printed  before.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the 
Three  Pigeons,  and  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Armes  in 
St.  Paul's  Curch-yard.     1652. 

The  Cardinal,  A  Tragedie,  As  It  was  acted  at  the  private  House 
in  Black  Fryers,  Written  By  James  Shirley.  Not  Printed  before. 
London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson  at  the  Three  Pigeons, 
and  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince's  Arms  in  St.  Paul's  Church- 
yard.    1652. 

The  Court  Secret,  A  Tragi-Comedy :  Never  Acted,  But  pre- 
pared for  the  Scene  at  Black-Friers.  Written  By  James  Shirley. 
Never  printed  before.  London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Robinson 
at  the  three  Pigeons,  and  for  Humphrey  Moseley  at  the  Prince's 
Armes  in  Saint  Paul's  Church-yard.     1653. 

At  the  end  of  The  Cardinal  is  appended  a  "Catalogue  of  the  Authors 
Poems  already  Printed,"  which  I  have  quoted  in  a  note  in  Chapter  V. 
In  Mr.  Hoe's  copy,  there  was  appended  to  The  Court  Secret  a  list  of 
books  for  sale  by  Humphrey  Moseley,  containing  evidence,  which  I  have 
quoted  in  my  second  chapter,  as  to  the  identity  of  The  Brothers  of  1652. 

Shirley,  James.  1653. 

Cvpid  and  Death.  A  Masque.  As  it  was  Presented  before  his 
Excellencie,  The  Embassadour  of  Portugal,  Upon  the  26.  of 
March,  1653.  Written  by  J.  S.  London:  Printed  according  to 
the  Authors  own  Copy,  by  T.  W.  for  J.  Crook,  &  J.  Baker,  at  the 
Sign  of  the  Ship  in  St.  Pauls  Church-Yard,  1653. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  644.  c.  64. 

Shirley,  James.  1655. 

The  Gentleman  of  Venice  A  Tragi-Comedie  Presented  at  the 
Private  house  in  Salisbury  Court  by  her  Majesties  Servants.  Writ- 
ten by  James  Shirley.     London,  Printed  for  Humphrey  Moseley 

C4"3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  at  the  Princes  Armes  in  St.  Pauls 
Church-yard.    1655. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  author  of  the  present  study,  identical, 
as  to  title-page,  with  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1655. 

The  Polititian,  A  Tragedy,  Presented  at  Salisbury  Court  By 
Her  Majesties  Servants;  Written  By  James  Shirley.  London, 
Printed  for  Humphrey  Moseley  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  Shop  at 
the  Princes  Armes  in  St.  Pauls  Church-yard.     1655. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  author  of  the  present  study,  identical, 
as  to  title-page,  with  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 

Shirley,  James.  1656. 

The  Rudiments  of  Grammar.  The  Rules  Composed  in  Eng- 
lish Verse,  For  The  greater  Benefit  and  delight  of  young  Begin- 
ners. By  James  Shirley.  Vtile  dulci.  London,  Printed  by  J. 
Macock  for  R.  Lownds,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  the  white 
Lyon  in  Paul's  Church-yard,  1656. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  E.  1704.  (2). 

Shirley,  James.  1659. 

Honoria  and  Mammon.  Written  by  James  Shirly  Gent.  Scene 
Metropolis,  or  New-Troy.  Whereunto  is  added  the  Contention  of 
Ajax  and  Ulisses,  for  the  Armour  of  Achilles.  As  it  was  repre- 
sented by  young  Gentlemen  of  quality  at  a  private  entertainment  of 
some  Persons  of  Honour.  London,  Printed  for  John  Crook,  and  are 
to  be  sold  at  his  shop  at  the  signe  of  the  Ship  in  S.  Pauls  Church- 
yard, 1659. 

The  foregoing  transcript  is  from  one  of  the  copies  belonging  to  the  late 
Robert  Hoe,  Esq.,  in  whose  library  were  three  copies,  one  of  which,  bound 
with  The  Triumph  of  Beauty,  appears  to  lack  the  joint  title-page.  The 
division  title-pages  are  as  follows: 

Honoria  and  Mammon.  Written  by  James  Shirley.  [Three 
lines  in  Latin.]  London,  Printed  by  T.  W.  for  John  Crook,  at 
the  sign  of  the  ship  in  S.  Pauls  Church-yard,     [n.d.] 


bibliography:  PART  I 

The  Contention  of  Ajax  and  Ulysses,  for  the  Armor  of  Achilles. 
As  It  was  nobly  represented  by  young  Gentlemen  of  quality,  at  a 
private  Entertainment  of  some  persons  of  Honour.  Written  By 
James  Shirley.  London,  Printed  for  John  Crook,  at  the  sign  of 
the  ship  in  S.  Pauls  Church-yard,     [n.d.] 

Shirley,  James.  1659. 

Cupid  and  Death.  A  Private  Entertainment,  represented  with 
Scenes  &  Musick,  Vocall  &  Instrumental.  Written  by  J.  S.  Lon- 
don, Printed  for  John  Crooke  and  John  Playford,  and  are  to  be 
sold  at  their  Shops  in  St.  Paul's  Church-yard  and  in  the  Inner 
Temple.     1659. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  644.  c.  66. 

Shirley,  James.  1660. 

Manductio:  or,  A  leading  of  Children  by  the  Hand  Through 
the  Principles  of  Grammar.  The  second  Edition,  Enlarged.  By 
Ja:  Shirley.  Perveniri  ad  summum  nisi  ex  principiis  non  potest. 
London,  Printed  for  Richard  Lowndes,  at  the  White-Lion  in  S. 
Pauls  Church-yard.     1660. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  E.  1931   (2). 

Shirley,  James.  1660. 

The  Wedding.  As  it  was  lately  Acted  by  her  Majesties  Ser- 
vants, at  the  Phgnix  in  Drury  Lane.  Written  by  James  Shirley, 
Gent.  Horat.  — Multaq;  pars  mei  Vitabit  Libitinam—  London. 
Printed  for  William  Leake,  and  are  to  be  sold  at  the  Crowne  in 
Fleet-Street,  between  the  two  Temple  Gates,  1660. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  644.  c.  68. 

Shirley,  James.  i66o[?]. 

The  Grateful  Servant.  A  Comedy.  As  it  was  Presented  with 
good  Applause  in  the  private  House  in  Drury-Lane.  By  Her  Maj- 
esties   Servants.      Written    by    James    Shirley,    Gent.      London, 

C4133 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Printed  for  William  Leake,  at  the  Crown  in  Fleetstreet,  between 
the  two  Temple  Gates,     [n.d.] 

1660?    From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  644.  c.  38. 

Shirley,  James.  1661. 

Love  will  finde  out  the  Way.  An  Excellent  Comedy.  By  T.  B. 
As  it  was  Acted  with  great  Applause,  by  Her  Majesties  Servants, 
at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury  Lane.  London:  Printed  by  Ja:  Cottrel, 
for  Samuel  Speed,  at  the  Signe  of  the  Printing-Press  in  St.  Paul's 
Church-yard.     166 1. 

From  the  copy  belonging  to  the  late  Robert  Hoe,  Esq. 
This  is  Shirley's  Constant  Maid,  1640,  with  a  new  title,  and  a  false 
ascription  as  to  authorship.    See  the  edition  of  1667,  below. 

Shirley,  James.  1667. 

The  Constant  Maid :  or,  Love  will  finde  out  the  Way.  A  Com- 
edy. By  J.  S.  As  it  is  now  Acted  at  the  new  Play-house  called 
The  Nursery,  in  Hatton-Garden.  London:  Printed  by  Ja:  Cot- 
terel,  for  Samuel  Speed,  at  the  signe  of  the  Rainbow  between  the 
two  Temple-gates.     1667. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  644.  c.  70. 

Shirley,  James.  1667. 

Love  Tricks,  or,  the  School  of  Complements ;  As  it  is  now  Acted 
by  His  Royal  Highnesse  The  Duke  of  York's  Servants  At  the 
Theatre  in  Little  Lincolns-Inne  Fields.  By  J.  S.  Licens'd  May 
24,  1667.  Roger  L'Estrange.  London,  Printed  by  R.  T.  and  sold 
by  Thomas  Dring  Junior,  at  the  White-Lion  near  Chancery  Lane 
in  Fleetstreet,  1667. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  644.  c.  71. 

Shirley,  James.  1692. 

The  Traytor.  A  Tragedy:  With  Alterations,  Amendments, 
and  Additions.  As  it  is  now  Acted  at  the  Theatre  Royal,  by  their 
Majesties  Servants.   Written  by  Mr.  Rivers.   London,  Printed  for 

[414] 


bibliography:  PART  I 

Richard  Parker  at  the  Royal  Exchange,  and  Sam.  Briscoe  in  Co- 
vent  Garden,  over  against  Wills  Coffee-House.     MDCXCII. 

From  the  copy  in  the  Library  of  Columbia  University,  823  Sh.  6  X; 
identical,  as  to  title-page,  with  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum,  643.  d.  65. 

For  the  claims  of  Mr.  Rivers,  the  Jesuit,  consult  the  preface  of  this 
edition,  and  the  passage  quoted  in  this  Bibliography  under  "Gentleman's 
Journal,"  1692. 

Shirley,  James,  revised  by  Johnson.  17 12. 

The  Wife's  Relief:  or,  The  Husband's  Cure.    A  Comedy.    As 

it  is  Acted  at  the  Theatre-Royal  in  Drury-Lane,  By  Her  Majesty's 

Servants.    Written  by  Mr.  Cha.  Johnson.— Perjurum  fuit  in  Ma- 

ritum  Splendide  Mendax.     London:  Printed  for  Jacob  Tonson, 

at  Shakespear's  Head  over-against  Catherine-street  in  the  Strand. 

1712. 

From  the  copy  in  the  Library  of  Columbia  University,  B  824  J  62. 
This  is  a  revision  of  Shirley's  The  Gamester,  1637.     Cf.  Garrick's  re- 
vision, The  Gamesters,  1758. 

Shirley,  James.  1744- 

The  Gamester.    A  Comedy.    By  Mr.  James  Shirley. 
Being  pp.  97-178  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.     Volume  the  Ninth.     Lon- 
don: ..  .  M.DCC.XLIV. 

Shirley,  James.  1744- 

The  Bird  in  a  Cage.    A  Comedy.    By  Mr.  James  Shirley. 
Being  pp.  179-252  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.     Volume  the  Ninth.     Lon- 
don: ..  .  M.DCC.XLIV. 

Shirley,  James.  *744- 

Love  Will  find  out  the  Way.    An  Excellent  Comedy.    By  T.  B. 
Being  pp.  95-170  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.    Volume  the  Twelfth.    Lon- 
don: ..  .  M.DCC.XLIV. 

C4I5] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

S.,  J.    (Not  James  Shirley.)  1744. 

Andromana:  or,  The  Merchant's  Wife.    A  Tragedy.     By  J.  S. 

Being  pp.  iji—241  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.  Volume  the  Eleventh.  Lon- 
don: ..  .  M.DCC.XLIV. 

Shirley,  James.  1750. 

St.  Patrick  for  Ireland.  A  Tragi-Comedy.  First  Acted  By  His 
Majesty's  Company  of  Comedians  in  the  Year  1639.  Written  by 
James  Shirley,  Esq;  To  which  is  prefix'd,  An  Account  of  the 
Author,  and  his  Works :  And  an  Abstract  of  The  Life  of  St.  Pat- 
rick: Collected  from  the  best  Historians.  Dublin:  Printed,  and 
Sold  by  the  Editor  W.  R.  Chetwood,  in  the  Four-court-marshal- 
sea;  Messrs.  G.  and  A.  Ewing,  P.  Wilson,  and  H.  Hawker,  in 
Dame-street ;  G.  Faulkner,  and  A.  Long,  in  Essex-street ;  J.  Hoey, 
in  Skinner-row;  and  J.  Esdall,  on  Cork-hill,  Booksellers. 
MDCCL. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  11775.  b.  61. 

Shirley,  James.  1751. 

St.  Patrick  for  Ireland.  A  Tragi-Comedy.  First  Acted  By 
His  Majesty's  Company  of  Comedians,  in  the  Year  1639.  Writ- 
ten by  James  Shirley,  Esq;  To  which  is  prefix'd,  An  Account  of 
the  Author,  and  his  Works:  And  an  Abstract  of  The  Life  of  St. 
Patrick,  Collected  from  the  best  Historians.  Dublin  printed :  Lon- 
don re-printed  ;  .  .  .  M.DCC.LI.     (Price  Six-pence.) 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  1346.  b.  3. 

Shirley,  James.  1754. 

The  Arcadia  a  Pastoral.  Written  by  James  Shirley  And  acted 
at  the  Phoenix  in  Drury-Lane,  in  the  Year  1640:  Founded  on  the 
same  Story  with  the  New  Tragedy,  call'd  Philoclea,  Now  acting 
at  the  Theatre  Royal  in  Covent-Garden. — Arcades  Ambo,  Et  can- 
tare  Pares.  London:  Printed  and  sold  by  W.  Reeve,  in  Fleet- 
Street.     M.DCC.LIV.     (Price  One  Shilling.) 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  1346.  d.  17. 

r4i6] 


bibliography:  part  i 

Shirley,  James,  revised  by  Garrick.  1758. 

The  Gamesters:  A  Comedy  alter'd  from  Shirley.     As  it  is  per- 

form'd  by  His  Majesty's  servants  at  the  Theatre-Royal  in  Drury- 

Lane.     London :   Printed  for  J.  and  R.  Tonson,  in  the  Strand. 

MDCCLVIIL     (Price  One  Shilling.) 

The  play  is  prefaced  with  the  following  "Advertisement": 
"In  the  year  171 1,  Mr.  Charles  Johnson  alter'd  The  Gamester,  written 
originally  hy  Shirley,  into  a  Comedy  which  he  call'd  The  Wife's  Relief, 
or  The  Husband's  Cure.  In  this  play  he  retain'd  Shirley's  underplot  of 
Leonora,  Violante,  and  Beaumont,  which  has  no  necessary  dependence 
upon  the  principal  action,  and  has  therefore  been  generally  censur'd  as 
impertinent;  nor  has  it,  separately  consider'd,  any  excellence  to  attone 
for  that  defect.  The  editor  of  The  Gamesters,  as  it  is  now  a  second  time 
alter'd  from  Shirley,  will  not  presume  to  offer  any  objections  to  the  altera- 
tions and  additions  which  Mr.  Johnson  has  been  pleas'd  to  make.  It 
will  be  sufficient  for  him  to  inform  the  reader  that  he  has  nothing  in 
common  with  Johnson  but  what  both  he  and  Johnson  have  in  common  with 
Shirley.  The  characters  of  Barnacle,  and  the  Nephew,  which  were  be- 
fore unconnected  with  the  principal  action,  are  now  interwoven  with  it: 
what  alterations  and  additions  have  been  now  made,  will  be  better  known 
by  a  comparison  of  this  play  with  the  original,  and  are,  with  great  defer- 
ence, submitted  to  the  candor  of  the  public." 

Shirley,  James.  1780. 

The  Bird  in  a  Cage. 
Being  pp.  IQI-2Q7  in  Dodsley's 

A   Select  Collection  of   Old   Plays.  .  .  .The   Second   Edition, 
.  .  .  Volume  VIII.   London,  .  .  .  MDCCLXXX. 

Shirley,  James.  1780. 

The  Gamester. 

Being  pp.  1— 1 08  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.  .  .  .  The  Second  Edition, 
.  .  .  Volume  IX.   London,  .  .  .  MDCCLXXX. 

S.,  J.     (Not  James  Shirley.)  1780. 

Andromana. 

Being  pp.  1—77  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.  .  .  .  The  Second  Edition, 
.  .  .  Volume  XL    London,  .  .  .  MDCCLXXX. 

[417] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Shirley,  James,  revised  by  Garrick.  1792. 

The  Gamesters.  A  Comedy  as  altered  from  Shirley  and  C.  John- 
son. Adapted  for  Theatrical  Representation,  as  performed  at  the 
Theatres-Royal,  Drury-Lane  and  Covent  Garden  .  .  .  London: 
.  .  .  John  Bell  .  .  .  M  DCC  XCII. 

In: 

Bell's  British  Theatre  .  .  .  Vol.  VI.  .  .  . 

Shirley,  James.  1793- 

The  Royal  Master,  A  Comedy.     Written  by  James  Shirley, 

Gentleman. — Fas  extra  queajre  regna.     London:   Printed    1638, 

Re-printed  1793,  by  T.  Wilkins,  Aldermanbur)'. 
From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  11777.  cc.  2(2). 

Shirley,  James.  1793- 

The  Maid's  Revenge.    A  Tragedy.    Written  by  James  Shirley, 

Gentleman.     London.      Printed    1639,   Re-Printed    1793,   by  T. 

Wilkins,  Aldermanbury. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  11777.  cc.  2(1). 

Shirley,  James,  revised  by  Sheil,  R.  L.  1819. 

Evadne;  or,  The  Statue:  A  Tragedy,  in  Five  Acts:  As  per- 
formed at  the  Theatre  Royal,  Covent-Garden.  By  Richard  Sheil, 
Esq.     Second  Edition.     London  .  .  .   1819. 

"The  Author  has  employed  a  part  of  the  fable  of  Shirley's  Traytor, 
in  the  construction  of  his  plot.  In  that  tragedy,  a  kinsman  and  favorite 
of  the  Duke  of  Florence  contrives  to  excite  in  him  a  dishonourable  passion 
for  the  sister  of  a  Florentine  nobleman,  as  the  means  of  procuring  the 
murder  of  the  Duke  by  the  hand  of  the  injured  brother,  and  thus  opening 
the  way  for  his  own  elevation  to  the  throne.  To  that  extent  only,  the 
plot  of  this  tragedy  is  derived  from  Shirley.  The  incidents,  situations, 
distribution,  characters,  and  language,  (such  as  they  are),  the  Author 
hopes  he  may  be  pardoned  for  observing,  are  his  own."     (Preface,  a  2.) 

Shirley,  James.  1833. 

The  Dramatic  Works  and  Poems  of  James  Shirley,  now  first 
collected;  with  notes  by  the  late  William  Gifford,  Esq.,  and  addi- 
tional notes,  and  some  account  of  Shirley  and  his  writings,  by  the 

C4I8] 


bibliography:  part  i 

Rev.  Alexander  Dyce.  In  six  volumes.  Vol.  I.  Containing  Some 
Account  of  Shirley  and  His  Writings.  Commendatory  Verses  on 
Shirley.  Love  Tricks,  or  the  School  of  Complement.  The  Maid's 
Revenge.  The  Brothers.  The  Witty  Fair  One.  The  Wedding. 
London:  John  Murray,  Albemarle  Street,  MDCCCXXXIIL 

.  .  .  Vol.  II.  Containing:  The  Grateful  Servant.  The  Trai- 
tor. Love's  Cruelty.  Love  in  a  Maze.  The  Bird  in  a  Cage. 
Hyde  Park.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  Vol.  III.  Containing:  The  Ball.  The  Young  Admiral. 
The  Gamester.  The  Example.  The  Opportunity.  The  Coro- 
nation. .  .  . 

.  .  .  Vol.  IV.  Containing:  The  Lady  of  Pleasure.  The  Royal 
Master.  The  Duke's  Mistress.  The  Doubtful  Heir.  St.  Patrick 
for  Ireland.    The  Constant  Maid.    The  Humorous  Courtier.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  Vol.  V.  Containing:  The  Gentleman  of  Venice.  The 
Politician.  The  Imposture.  The  Cardinal.  The  Sisters.  The 
Court  Secret.  .  .  . 

.  .  .  Vol.  VI.     Containing:  Honoria  and  Mammon.     Chabot, 

Admiral  of  France.     The  Arcadia.     The  Triumph  of  Peace.     A 

Contention  for  Honour  and  Riches.     The  Triumph  of  Beauty. 

Cupid   and   Death.     The  Contention  of  Ajax  and   Ulysses,  &c. 

Poems.  .  .  . 

This  is  the  only  complete  collection  of  the  plays  and  poems  of  Shirley. 
For   reviews,    see    under    The  American   Quarterly  Review   and    The 
Quarterly  Review. 

Shirley,  James.  1872. 

The  Traitor. 
Being  pp.  505-528  in  : 

The  Works  of  the  British  Dramatists  .  .  .  [Edited]  by  John 
S.  Keltie  .  .  .   Edinburgh  .  .  .     1872. 

Shirley,  James.  1872. 

The  Brothers. 
Being  pp.  528-549  in: 

The  Works  of  the  British  Dramatists  .  .  .  [Edited]  By  John 
S.  Keltie  .  .  .  Edinburgh  .  .  .     1872. 

[4193 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Shirley,  James.  i 888  [  ?] . 

The  Mermaid  Series.     James  Shirley.     With  an  Introduction 

by  Edmund   Gosse,   M.A.,   Clark   Lecturer  at  Trinity   College, 

Cambridge.     "I  lie  and  dream  of  your  full  Mermaid  wine."  — 

Beaumont.      London:   T.   Fisher   Unwin.      New  York:   Charles 

Scribner's  Sons,     [n.d.] 

Contents:  James  Shirley.     The  Witty  Fair  One.     The  Traitor.     Hyde 
Park.    The  Lady  of  Pleasure.    The  Cardinal.     The  Triumph  of  Peace. 
For  comment  on  the  Introduction,  see  under  "Gosse,  Edmund." 

Shirley,  James,  (and  Chapman,  George).  1906. 

Publications  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Series  in  Phi- 
lology and  Literature.  Volume  X.  The  Tragedie  of  Chabot 
Admirall  of  France.  Written  by  George  Chapman  and  James 
Shirley.  Reprinted  from  the  Quarto  of  1639.  Edited  with  an 
Introduction  and  Notes  by  Ezra  Lehman,  Sometime  Harrison  Fel- 
low in  English,  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Published  for  the  Uni- 
versity, Philadelphia,  1906.  The  John  C.  Winston  Co.,  Publica- 
tion Agents,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Shirley,  James:  (and  Chapman,  George.)  1910. 

The  Tragedy  of  Chabot,  Admiral  of  France. 

Being  pp.  273-337  in: 

The  Plays  and  Poems  of  George  Chapman.  The  Tragedies. 
Edited  with  introductions  and  notes  by  Thomas  Marc  Parrott, 
Ph.D.,  Professor  of  English  Literature  at  Princeton  University. 
London:  George  Routledge  &  Sons,  Limited.  New  York:  E.  P. 
Dutton  &  Co.  [1910]. 

Shirley,  James.  191  i. 

The  Lady  of  Pleasure. 

Being  pp.  800-82Q  in  : 

The  Chief  Elizabethan  Dramatists  excluding  Shakespeare.  Se- 
lected plays  .  .  .  edited  .  .  .  by  William  Allan  Neilson,  Ph.D., 
Professor  of  English,  Harvard  University.  Boston  and  New  York 
.  .  .    1911. 

[420] 


bibliography:  PART  I 

Shirley,  James.  191  i. 

The  Cardinal. 

Being  pp.  830-853  in : 

The  Chief  Elizabethan  Dramatists  excluding  Shakespeare.  Se- 
lected Plays  .  .  .  edited  ...  by  William  Allan  Neilson,  Ph.D., 
Professor  of  English,  Harvard  University.  Boston  and  New  York 
.  .  .   191 1. 

Shirley,  James.  1911. 

Der  konigliche  Meister  (The  Royal  Master).  Schauspiel  in 
fiinf  Akten  von  James  Shirley.  (1596-1666.)  Ubersetzt  von  J. 
Schipper.  .  .  . 

Being  pp.  30*3-445  in : 

James  Shirley,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke.  Nebst  einer  Uber- 
setzung  seines  Dramas  "The  Royal  Master,"  von  J.  Schipper.  .  .  . 
Wien  und  Leipzig:  Wilhelm  Braumuller  .  .  .   191 1. 

For  annotation,  see  under  "Schipper,  J." 

Shirley,  James.  1914- 

James  Shirley.    The  Royal  Master.    Edited  with  Critical  Essay 

and    Notes   by    Sir   Adolphus   William   Ward,    Litt.D.,    F.B.A., 

Master  of  Peterhouse,  Cambridge. 
Being  pp.  545-652  in : 
Representative      English      Comedies    .  .  .     [edited      by]     .  .  . 

Charles   Mills  Gayley  .  .  .  Volume   III.  .  .  .  New  York,  .  .  . 

1914. 


C42I] 


Part  II 

WORKS  CONTAINING  REFERENCES  TO  SHIRLEY, 
ARRANGED  ALPHABETICALLY  BY  AUTHORS 

American  Quarterly  Review. 

An  anonymous  review  entitled: 

The  Dramatic  Works  and  Poems  of  James  Shirley  ...  by  the 
late  William  Gifford  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  the  Rev.  Alexander  Dyce. 

Being  pp.  103-166  in: 

The  American  Quarterly  Review.  Vol.  XVI.  September  & 
December,  1834.  Philadelphia:  Key  and  Biddle,  23  Minor  Street. 
T.  K.  Collins  &  Co.,  Printers.     1834. 

This  review  is  rarely  more  than  a  pleasing  summary  of  the  plays, 
elaborated  with  extensive  extracts.  The  reviewer  displays  little  know- 
ledge of  dramatic  art,  or  of  the  history  of  the  English  drama,  or  of  the 
social  conditions  which  Shirley's  comedies  of  manners  were  intended  to 
depict.  Of  The  Cardinal,  indeed,  he  gives  (pp.  158-165)  a  fairly  dis- 
criminating critique;  but,  for  the  most  part,  he  confines  his  critical  dis- 
cussions to  a  commendation  of  the  poetry  and  a  condemnation  of  the 
immorality  of  the  plays  of  Shirley.  Of  the  condemnation,  the  following 
extract  is  typical : 

"The  Maid's  Revenge  ...  is  reprehensible,  in  a  high  degree,  for  its 
extravagance  and  grossness;  and  some  surprise  is  naturally  felt  on  perus- 
ing it,  that  a  Reverend  personage  should  have  been  the  instrument  of 
ushering  it  into  public  notice.  This  remark,  indeed,  may  be  extended  to 
the  editorship  of  the  whole.  Few,  if  any,  of  the  pieces  contained  in  these 
volumes,  are  such  as  may  be  considered  to  be  perfectly  in  keeping  with 
the  clerical  gown."     (p.  104.) 

Apology  for  the  Believers  in  the  Shakspeare-Papers,  An. 
(Anon.) 
See  Chalmers,  George. 

[422] 


bibliography:  PART  II 

Arber,  Edward. 

For  An  English  Garner,  .  .  .  1897,  containing  Three  to  One, 
see  under  Peeke,  Richard. 

For  A  Transcript  of  the  Registers  of  the  Company  of  Stationers, 
.  .  .  Edited  by  Edward  Arber  .  .  .  1877,  see  under  Station- 
ers' Register. 

Baker,  D.  E. 

Biographia  Dramatica;  or  a  Companion  to  the  Playhouse  .  .  . 

Originally  compiled,  to  the  year  1764,  by  David  Erskine  Baker. 

Continued  thence  ...  by  Isaac  Reed,  F.A.S.  and  .  .  .  Stephen 

Jones.    In  three  volumes.    Vol.1. — Part  II.    London,  .  .  .   1812. 

The  sketch  of  James  Shirley,  pp.  666-668,  is,  for  the  most  part,  plagiar- 
ized from  Wood.  A  few  touches  come  from  Phillips,  Farmer,  and  others. 
It  offers  little  that  is  original  except  its  errors. 

Bancroft,  Thomas. 

Two  Bookes  of  Epigrammes  and  Epitaphs.  Dedicated  to  the 
two  top-branches  of  Gentry:  Sir  Charles  Shirley,  Baronet,  and 
William  Davenport,  Esquire.  Written  By  Thomas  Bancroft. 
London :  Printed  by  I.  Okes,  for  Matthew  Walbancke,  and  are  to 
be  sold  at  his  shop  in  Grayes-Inne-gate.     1639. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  1077.  b.  15. 

Brooke,  J.  M.  S.,  and  Hallen,  A.  W.  C. 

For  The  Transcript  of  the  Registers  of  ...  S.  Mary  Wool- 
church  .  .  .  ,  see  under  St.  Mary  Woolchurch. 

Brydges,  S.  E. 

Censura  Literaria.  Containing  titles,  abstracts,  and  opinions  of 
old  English  books,  with  original  disquisitions,  articles  of  biography, 
and  other  literary  antiquities.  By  Samuel  Egerton  Brydges,  Esq. 
Volume  II.    London:  .  .  .   1806. 

Volume  II,  p.  382,  presents  an  alleged  transcript  of  the  title-page  of 
the  lost  Eccho,  or  the  Infortunate  Lovers,  1618.     The  entry  reads: 

"Art.  26.  Echo,  or  the  Infortunate  Lovers,  a  poem,  by  James  Sherley, 

[423] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,   DRAMATIST 

Cant,  in  Art.  Bacc.  Lond.  1618.  8vo.  Primum  hunc  Arethusa,  mihi  concede 

laborem. 

"From  a  Ms.  note  to  Astle's  copy  of  Wood's  Athena." 

See  also  Volume  vi,  pages  1  and  25.    Cf.  edition  of  1815,  II,  381-387. 

BULLEN,  A.  H. 

A  Collection  of  Old  English  Plays.  In  Four  Volumes.  Edited 
by  A.  H.  Bullen.  Vol.  II.  Privately  printed  by  Wyman  &  Sons, 
Great  Queen  Street,  Lincoln's-Inn  Fields,  London,  1883. 

In  Volume  11,  pp.  1-99,  Bullen  reprints  the  old  play  of  Dicke  of  Devon- 
shire, which  Fleay  has  since  attempted  to  identify  with  Shirley's  lost  play, 
The  Brothers  of  1626. 

In  the  same  volume,  p.  315  et.  seq.,  Bullen  attempts  to  prove  that  the 
play  which  he  reprints  under  the  title  Captain  Underwit  is  by  Shirley. 
The  play  is  really  The  Country  Captain  by  William  Cavendish,  Duke  of 
Newcastle.     See  Schelling,  Elizabethan  Drama,  11,  283-284. 

Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature. 

For  the  half-chapter  on  Shirley,  see  Neilson,  W.  A. 

Campbell,  T. 

Specimens  of  the  British  Poets;  with  biographical  and  critical 
notices,  and  an  essay  on  English  Poetry.  By  Thomas  Campbell. 
In  seven  volumes.  Vol.  I.  Essay  on  English  Poetry.  London: 
John  Murray,  Albemarle-Street,  18 19. 

In  Volume  1,  pp.  225-232,  Campbell  gives  cordial  but,  on  the  whole, 
discriminating  praise  to  Shirley,  illustrated  with  four  pages  of  extracts 
from  his  works. 

In  Volume  iv,  pp.  1-62,  he  gives  a  brief  notice  of  Shirley  and  long 
extracts  from  The  Cardinal,  The  Royal  Master,  The  Grateful  Servant, 
The  Doubtful  Heir,  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  and  Chabot. 

Chalmers,  George.    (Anon.) 

An  Apology  for  the  Believers  in  the  Shakspeare-Papers,  which 
were  exhibited  in  Norfolk-Street.  .  .  .  London:  .  .  .   1797. 

Note  v,  pp.  513-514,  is  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  letter  of  June  10,  1637, 
"from  a  MS.  book  in  his  office." 

Note  iv,  pp.  515-516,  is  the  list  of  plays  belonging  to  the  Cockpit, 
August  10,  1639. 

[424] 


bibliography:  PART  II 

Chambers,  E.  K. 

Plays  of  the  King's  Men  in  1 641,  by  E.  K.  Chambers. 

Being  pp.  364-369  in  : 

Collections  Parts  IV  &  V.    The  Malone  Society.     191 1. 

A  letter  from  the  Earl  of  Essex,  Lord  Chamberlain,  to  the  Stationers' 
Company  forbidding  the  publication  of  The  Doubtful  Heir,  The  Impos- 
ture, The  Brothers,  and  other  plays  belonging  to  the  King's  Men,  August 
7,  1641. 

Chetwood,  W.  R. 

A  General  History  of  the  Stage;  (More  Particularly  the  Irish 
Theater)  .  .  .  by  W.  R.  Chetwood  .  .  .  Dublin:  .  .  .  M  DCC 
XLIX. 

Pages  51-52  present  a  brief  account  of  John  Ogilby's  theater  in  War- 
berg  Street,  Dublin,  1635-1641. 

ClBBER,  THEOPHILUS. 

The  Lives  of  the  Poets  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.  Compiled 
from  ample  Materials  scattered  in  a  Variety  of  Books,  and  espe- 
cially from  the  MS.  Notes  of  the  late  ingenious  Mr.  Coxeter  and 
others,  collected  for  this  Design  by  Mr.  Cibber  and  other  hands. 
Vol.  II.  London:  Printed  for  R.  Griffiths,  at  the  Dunciad  in  St. 
Paul's  Church-Yard.     MD  CC  LIII. 

This  work,  according  to  opinions  now  accepted,  was  the  labor  not  of 
Theophilus  Cibber  but,  chiefly,  of  one  Robert  Shiels.  Mr.  Cibber's  con- 
tribution was  merely  his  notoriety  (he  was  then  in  jail)  and  perhaps  some 
slight  revision.  The  account  of  Shirley,  Volume  11,  pp.  26-32,  is  a  delight- 
fully imaginative  paraphrase  of  that  by  Wood. 

Clutterbuck,  Robert. 

The  History  and  Antiquities  of  the  County  of  Hertford ;  com- 
piled from  the  best  printed  Authors  and  Original  Records  pre- 
served in  public  repositories  and  private  collections.  ...  By  Rob- 
ert Clutterbuck,  of  Watford,  Esq.,  F.S.A.  Volume  the  First. 
London:  .  .  .   1815. 

In  Volume  1,  p.  48,  Clutterbuck  gives  some  account  of  the  Edward  the 
Sixth   Grammar   School   at  St.  Albans  and,  in  a  foot-note,   a  list  of  the 

[425] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

schoolmasters  in  which  appears  for  the  year  1623  the  name  of  James 
Sherley.  In  the  same  volume,  p.  83  et  seg.,  Clutterbuck  gives  a  bio- 
graphical sketch  of  Shirley,  plagiarized  from  Wood. 

Collier,  J.  P. 

The  History  of  English  Dramatic  Poetry  to  the  Time  of  Shake- 
speare: and  Annals  of  the  Stage  to  the  Restoration.  By  J.  Payne 
Collier,  Esq.,  F.S.A.  Volume  the  second.  London:  .  .  .  MD- 
CCCXXXI. 

The  "Annals  of  the  Stage,"  which  constitute  pp.  1-119  of  Volume  II, 
include  extracts  from  Herbert's  office-book  and  other  interesting  docu- 
ments. Among  these  are  to  be  noted:  an  extract  from  the  diary  of  Sir 
Humphrey  Mildmay,  11,  70,  note;  a  letter  of  the  Lord  Chamberlain  of 
June  10,  1637,  11,  83-84,  note;  the  Cockpit  list  of  Aug.  10,  1639,  II,  92,  note; 
and  the  appointment  of  Davenant  to  the  management  of  the  Cockpit  in 
place  of  W.  Beeston,  11,  101,  note. 

Dibdin,  Charles,  the  elder. 

A  Complete  History  of  the  Stage,  written  by  Mr.  Dibdin.  The 
players  cannot  keep  counsel ;  they'll  tell  all.  Vol.  IV.  London. 
Printed  for  the  author  and  sold  by  him  at  his  warehouse,  Leicester 
Place,  Leicester  Square,     [n.d.] 

This  work  is  assigned  by  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  xv,  5, 
to  the  year  1795.    The  British  Museum  catalogue  dates  it  "[1800]." 

Dibdin's  nine  pages  upon  Shirley,  Volume  iv,  pp.  38-47,  are  devoted 
to  brief  comment,  usually  unfavorable,  upon  the  several  plays.  He  thinks 
that  "tragedy  was  not  the  forte  of  Shirley"  (iv,  40),  and  remarks  of  The 
Doubtful  Heir  and  The  Impostor  [sic]  that  "you  always  pity  him  for 
making  Fletcher  his  model"  (iv,  44-45). 

Dicke  of  Devonshire. 
See  Bullen,  A.  H. 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography  (DNB.). 
See  Ward,  A.  W. 

Dodsley,  Robert.  1744- 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.    Volume  the  First.    London: 

Printed  for  R.  Dodsley  in  Pall-Mali.     M.DCC.XLIV. 

This,  the  first  edition  of  Dodsley's  Old  Plays,  published  in  twelve  vol- 

[426] 


bibliography:  part  ii 

umes,  contains  the  following  plays  by  Shirley  or  ascribed  to  Shirley:  The 
Gamester  (ix,  97-178)  ;  The  Bird  in  a  Cage  (ix,  179-252)  ;  Andro- 
mana:  or,  The  Merchant's  Wife.  A  Tragedy.  By  J.  S.  (xi,  171-241); 
Love  Will  find  out  the  Way.  An  Excellent  Comedy.  By  T.  B.  (xii,  95- 
170;  from  the  edition  of  1661).  It  contains  also  A  Dialogue  on  Plays 
and  Players  (xi,  i-xxxvii)  by  James  Wright. 

Dodsley,  Robert.  1780. 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.  In  Twelve  Volumes.  The 
Second  Edition,  corrected  and  collated  with  the  Old  Copies.  With 
Notes  Critical  and  Explanatory.  Volume  VIII.  London,  .  .  . 
MDCCLXXX. 

Volume  viii,  pp.  191-297,  reprints  Shirley's  The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  with 
a  sketch  of  Shirley  based  on  Wood  prefixed,  and  a  reprint  of  the  title- 
page  of  1633  appended. 

Volume  ix,  pp.  1-108,  reprints  Shirley's  The  Gamester,  with  a  tran- 
script of  the  title-page  of  1637  appended. 

Volume  xi,  pp.  1-77,  reprints  Andromana,  by  J.  S.,  with  a  transcript 
of  the  title-page  of  1660  appended. 

Volume  xii,  pp.  337-363,  reprints  James  Wright's  Historia  Histrionica. 

Dodsley,  Robert.  1825. 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.  In  twelve  volumes.  Vol.  I. 
A  New  Edition :  with  additional  notes  and  corrections,  by  the  late 
Isaac  Reed,  Octavius  Gilchrist,  and  the  editor  [J.  Payne  Collier]. 
London.  .  .  .  M  DCCC  XXV. 

From  this  edition,  all  plays  by  Shirley  were  omitted  in  the  expectation 
of  the  early  appearance  of  Gifford's  Shirley.  The  edition  retains,  how- 
ever, Wright's  Historia  Histrionica,  in  Vol.  I,  pp.  cxxxix-clxix. 

Dodsley,  Robert.  1876. 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  English  Plays.  Originally  published 
by  Robert  Dodsley  in  the  year  1744.  Fourth  Edition,  now  first 
chronologically  arranged,  revised  and  enlarged  with  the  notes  of 
all  the  commentators,  and  new  notes  by  W.  Carew  Hazlitt.  Vol- 
ume the  fifteenth.    London:  .  .  .   1876. 

This  edition  of  1876  omits  all  plays  by  Shirley — unless  we  so  classify 
Andromana:  or  the  Merchants  Wife.  .  .  .  By  J.  S.  It  contains,  however 
(xv,  399-431),  a  reprint  of  James  Wright's  Historia  Histrionica,  1699 
(q.v.). 

C4273 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Downes,  John. 

Roscius  Anglicanus,  or  an  historical  review  of  the  stage  from 
1660  to  1706.  By  John  Downes.  A  fac-simile  reprint  of  the  rare 
original  of  1708.  With  an  historical  preface  by  Joseph  Knight. 
London.  .  .  .   1886. 

As  Downes  explains  in  his  preface,  his  official  connection  with  the 
theatrical  companies  of  the  Restoration  and  the  access  that  he  had  to  the 
records  of  the  several  theaters,  make  his  account  of  the  stage  from  1660 
to  1706  particularly  valuable.  Four  passages  that  refer  to  plays  by  Shir- 
ley, I  quote  at  length: 

"The  Company  [his  Majesty's  Company  of  Comedians]  being  thus  Com- 
pleat,  they  open'd  the  New  Theatre  in  Drury-Lane,  on  Thursday  in  Easter 
Week,  being  the  8th  Day  of  April  1663,  with  The  Humorous  Lieutenant 
[p.  3].  .  .  .  These  being  their  Principal  Old  Stock  Plays,  yet  in  this  In- 
terval from  the  Day  they  begun,  there  were  divers  others  Acted,  .  .  . 
The  Opportunity,  The  Example,  .  .  .  The  Cardinal,  [p.  8]  .  .  .  The 
Traytor,  .  .  .  These  being  Old  Plays,  were  Acted  but  now  and  then;  yet, 
being  well  Perform'd,  were  very  Satisfactory  to  the  Town"  [p.  9]. 

"Next  follows  the  Plays  Writ  by  the  then  Modern  Poets,  ...  [p.  9] 
yet  they  Acted  divers  others  .  .  .  as  .  .  .  Love  in  a  Maze"  [p.  15]. 

"After  this  [in  1666]  the  Company  [of  Sir  William  Davenant,  in 
Lincoln's  Inn  Fields]  Reviv'd  Three  Comedies  of  Mr.  Sherlv's,  viz.  The 
Grateful  Servant,  The  Witty  Fair  One,  The  School  of  Complements.  .  .  . 
These  Plays  being  perfectly  well  Perform'd;  especially  Dulcino  the 
Grateful  Servant,  being  Acted  by  Mrs.  Long;  and  the  first  time  she 
appear'd  in  Man's  Habit,  prov'd  as  Beneficial  to  the  Company,  as  several 
succeeding  new  Plays"  [p.  27]. 

"Upon  the  9th  of  April,  1705,  Captain  Vantbrugg  open'd  his  new 
Theatre  in  the  Hay-Market.  .  .  .  The  first  Play  Acted  there,  was  The 
Gamester"  [p.  48]. 

Dryden,  John. 

The  Globe  Edition.  The  Poetical  Works  of  John  Dryden. 
Edited  with  a  memoir,  revised  text,  and  notes,  by  W.  D.  Christie, 
M.A.,  of  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  .  .  .  London.     1908. 

In  MacFlecknoe,   1682,   Dryden    (Globe   edition,   p.    144,    lines   29-32) 

makes  Flecknoe  say  to  Shadwell: 

Heywood  and  Shirley  were  but  types  of  thee, 
Thou  last  great  prophet  of  tautology. 
Even  I,  a  dunce  of  more  renown  than  they, 
Was  sent  before  but  to  prepare  thy  way. 

And  at  the  coronation  of  Shadwell   (p.  146,  lines  98-103), 

No  Persian  carpets  spread  the  imperial  way, 
Hut  scattered  limbs  of  mangled  poets  lay; 

[428] 


bibliography:  PART  II 

From  dusty  shops  neglected  authors  come, 
Martyrs  of  pies.  .  .  . 

Much  Heywood,  Shirley,  Ogleby  there  lay, 
But  loads  of  Shadwell  almost  choked  the  way. 

Dyce,  Alexander. 

Some  Account  of  Shirley  and  his  Writings. 

Being  pp.  iii—lxvi  in: 

The  Dramatic  Works  and  Poems  of  James  Shirley,  now  first 
collected ;  with  notes  by  the  late  William  Gifford,  Esq.,  and  addi- 
tional notes,  and  Some  Account  of  Shirley  and  his  Writings,  by 
the  Rev.  Alexander  Dyce.  In  Six  Volumes.  Vol.  I.  .  .  .  Lon- 
don: ..  .  MDCCC  XXXIII. 

This  account  by  Dyce,  based  upon  the  sketch  by  Wood,  Malone's  ex- 
tracts from  Herbert's  office-book,  the  works  of  Shirley,  and  such  miscella- 
neous sources  as  the  register  of  Merchant  Taylors'  School  and  the  burial 
records  of  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields,  is  still,  after  eighty  years,  a  surprisingly 
accurate  and  complete  statement  of  the  little  that  we  know  of  Shirley's 
life. 

Dyce,  Alexander  ;  and  Gifford,  William. 

For  reviews  of  their  edition  of  The  Dramatic  Works  and  Poems 
of  James  Shirley  .  .  .   1833,  see: 

American  Quarterly  Review. 

Quarterly  Review. 

English  Stage,  Some  Account  of  the.    (Anon.) 
See  Genest,  Rev.  John. 

Farmer,  Richard. 

An  Essay  on  the  Learning  of  Shakespeare:  addressed  to  Joseph 
Cradock,  Esq;  By  Richard  Farmer,  M.A.,  Fellow  of  Emmanuel- 
College,  Cambridge,  and  of  The  Society  of  Antiquaries,  London. 
Cambridge:  Printed  by  J.  Archdeacon,  Printer  to  the  University; 
For  W.  Thurlbourn  &  J.  Woodyer,  in  Cambridge;  and  Sold  by 
J.  Beecrof  t,  in  Pater-noster-Row ;  J.  Dodsley,  in  Pail-Mall ;  and 
T.  Cadell  in  the  Strand,  London.    M.DCC.LXVII.       /H"J 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  641:  e.  27(5). 

To  a  passage  in  this  Essay,  Dyce  and  Ward  attribute  the  revival  of 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Shirley's  reputation  as  a  dramatist.  See  Dyce  in  Works,  I,  xi,  and  Ward 
in  DNB.,  HI,  129,  and  in  English  Dramatic  Literature,  III,  95.  Farmer 
wrote:  "Shirley  is  spoken  of  with  contempt  in  MacFlecknoe ;  but  his  imagi- 
nation is  sometimes  fine  to  an  extraordinary  degree."  And  then  he  quoted 
from  The  Brothers  the  exquisite  description  of  Jacinta  at  vespers. 

Farmer,  Richard. 

Essay  on  the  Learning  of  Shakspeare  addressed  to  Joseph 
Cradock,  Esq.  By  Richard  Farmer,  D.D.,  Master  of  Emmanuel 
College,  Cambridge,  and  Principal  Librarian  of  that  University. 
London:  .  .  .   1821. 

In  this  edition,  the  reference  to  Shirley  is  on  pp.  37-38. 

Fleay,  F.  G. 

Annals  of  the  Careers  of  James  and  Henry  Shirley. 

Being  pages  405—414  in: 

Anglia.  Zeitschrift  fur  Englische  Philologie.  Herausgegeben 
von  Richard  Paul  Wiilker.  Mit  einem  kritischen  Anzeiger. 
Herausgegeben  von  Moritz  Trautmann.  VIII  Band.  Halle  a.  S. 
Max  Niemeyer.     1885. 

This  is  an  important  but  unreliable  contribution  to  the  biography  of 
Shirley.    Among  the  typographical  errors,  I  note  the  following: 

Page  406,  line  17:  The  date  when  Love  Tricks  was  entered  in  the  Sta- 
tioners' Register  should  be  1630/31,  not  1630  unless  marked  "Old  Style." 

Page  406,  line  20:  The  date  when  The  Duke  was  licensed  should  be 
May  17,  not  May  7. 

Page  407,  line  14:  The  date  when  The  Bird  in  a  Cage  was  entered 
should  be  March  19,  not  March  10. 

Page  408,  line  47:  The  date  when  The  Ball  and  Chabot  were  entered 
should  be  October  24,  not  December  24. 

Page  409,  line  7:  The  date  when  The  Humorous  Courtier  was  entered 
should  be  July  29,  not  July  20. 

Page  409,  line  17:  The  date  when  Looke  to  the  Ladie  was  entered 
should  be  March  11,  not  March  10. 

Page  412,  line  20:  The  date  when  St.  Patrick  was  entered  should  be 
April  28,  not  October  28. 

Page  412,  passim:  "Williams  and  Egglestone"  should  read  "Williams 
and  Egglesfeild." 

Fleay,  F.  G. 

A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  English  Drama.     1 559-1642. 

[43o:i 


BIBLIOGRAPHY:   PART  II 

By  Frederick  Gard  Fleay,  M.A.,  author  of  "The  Life  and  Work 
of  Shakespeare,"  "A  Chronicle  History  of  the  London  Stage,  1559- 
1642,"  Etc.     In  two  volumes.     Volume  II.     London.  .  .  .   1891. 

Pages  233-247  are  devoted  to  James  Shirley.  The  account  is  valuable; 
but  its  value  is  much  lessened  by  numerous  misprints,  among  which  I 
note  the  following: 

Page  233,  line  28:  The  date  on  which  The  Gamester  was  entered  in  the 
Stationers'  Register  should  be  November  15,  not  October  18. 

Page  234,  line  15:  The  date  on  which  The  Humorous  Courtier  was  en- 
tered should  be  July  29,  not  July  20. 

Page  237,  line  18:  The  date  on  which  The  Duke  was  licensed  should 
be  May  17,  not  May  7. 

Page  246,  line  5:  The  date  of  The  Doubtful  Heir  is,  of  course,  1652, 
not  1552. 

Forsythe,  Robert  Stanley. 

The  Relations  of  Shirley's  Plays  to  the  Elizabethan  Drama.  By 
Robert  Stanley  Forsythe,  Ph.D.,  Sometime  University  Scholar  and 
University  Fellow  in  English,  Columbia  University.  New  York. 
Columbia  University  Press.     1914.  .  .  . 

A  most  scholarly  contribution. 

Genest,  Rev.  John  (Anon.). 

Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage,  from  the  Restoration  in 
1660  to  1830.     In  ten  volumes.  .  .  .  Vol.  IX.     Bath  .  .  .   1832. 

To  the  student  of  Shirley,  this  work  is  valuable  not  so  much  for  its 
abstracts  of  the  plots  of  Shirley's  plays  as  for  its  record  of  Shirleian 
revivals.     See   especially,  ix,   541-563;   but  also,  1,  78-79;   1,   339-341;   1, 

350-351 ;  ",  30-31;  11,  491-493;  I",  142-144;  vi,  399-400. 

Genest  worked  from  first-hand  sources,  the  play-bills  and  the  records 
of  the  theaters.  His  Account,  in  the  words  of  Joseph  Knight  (DNB.,  xxi, 
119),  is  "a  work  of  great  labour  and  research,  which  forms  the  basis  of 
most  exact  knowledge  concerning  the  stage.  Few  books  of  reference  are 
equally  trustworthy,  the  constant  investigation  to  which  it  has  been  sub- 
jected having  brought  to  light  few  errors  and  none  of  grave  importance." 

Gentleman's  Journal. 

The  Gentleman's  Journal:  or  the  Monthly  Miscellany.  By 
Way  of  Letter  To  a  Gentleman  in  the  Country.     Consisting  of 

C430 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

News,  History,  Philosophy,  Poetry,  Musick,  Translations,  &c. 
April,  1692.  Plus  multo  tibi  debiturus  hie  est,  Quam  debet  Dom- 
ino suo  libellus.  Licensed,  April  13th,  1692.  R.  Midgley.  Lon- 
don, Printed  for  Rich.  Parker;  and  are  to  be  Sold  by  Rich.  Bald- 
win, near  the  Oxford  Arms  in  Warwick  Lane.     1692. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  P.  P.  5255. 

On  p.  21  occurs  the  following  passage: 

"The  Traytor,  an  old  Tragedy,  hath  not  only  been  revived  the  last 
Month,  but  also  been  reprinted  with  Alterations  and  Amendments:  It  was 
supposed  to  be  Shirly's,  but  he  only  usher'd  it  in  to  the  Stage;  The  Author 
of  it  was  one  Mr.  Rivers,  a  Jesuite,  who  wrote  it  in  his  Confinement  in 
Newgate,  where  he  died.  It  hath  always  been  esteemed  a  very  good 
Play,  by  the  best  Judges  of  Dramatick  Writing." 

Gentleman's  Magazine. 
See  Smith,  G.  Barnett. 

Gifford,  William  ;  and  Dyce,  Alexander. 

For  reviews  of  their  edition  of  The  Dramatic  Works  and  Poems 
of  James  Shirley  .  .  .   1833,  see: 

American  Quarterly  Review. 

Quarterly  Review. 

Glode,  O. 

Review  of: 

P.  Nissen:  James  Shirley.  .  .  .   1901. 
Being  pp.  392-394  in : 

Englische  Studien.  Organ  fur  englische  philologie  .  .  .  Heraus- 
gegeben  von  Johannes  Hoops.  ...  34  band.    Leipzig.  .  .  .   1904. 

Gosse,  Edmund. 

James  Shirley. 

Being  pp.  vii—xxx  in: 

The  Mermaid  Series.  James  Shirley,  with  an  introduction  by 
Edmund  Gosse,  M.A.,  Clark  Lecturer  at  Trinity  College,  Cam- 
bridge. "I  lie  and  dream  of  your  full  Mermaid  wine." — Beau- 
mont.   London  .  .  .   New  York  .  .  .    [n.d.] 

Gosse's  Introduction  is  the  customary  sketch,  biographical  and  critical: 

[432] 


bibliography:  PART  II 

a  pleasing  little  article,  but  marred  by  a  willingness  to  accept  as  facts 
the  suppositions  of  any  previous  writer.  To  the  errors  of  his  predecessors, 
Gosse  adds  a  few  of  his  own,  as  when  he  speaks  of  The  Brothers  as  a 
tragedy,  and  places  The  Bird  in  a  Cage  before  Hyde  Park  and  The  Ball, 
forgetful  that  the  date  he  has  given  for  the  former,  1632,  is  Old  Style, 
and  should  read  January  21,  1632/3. 

Herbert,  Sir  Henry,  Master  of  the  Revels. 
See  Malone,  Edmond. 

HlSTORIA  HlSTRIONICA.      (ANON.) 

See  Wright,  James. 

Hoe,  Robert. 

Catalogue  of  Books  by  English  Authors  who  lived  before  the 

year  1 700,  forming  a  part  of  the  Library  of  Robert  Hoe.    Volume 

IV.     Printed  in  New  York,  April   1904.     Sold  by  George  H. 

Richmond. 

Pages  151-172  of  this  catalogue  give  transcripts  of  the  entire  title-pages 
of  the  original  quartos  and  folios  of  the  plays  of  Shirley,  of  which  Mr. 
Hoe  had  an  almost  complete  collection.  I  have  compared  these  transcripts 
with  those  which  I  myself  made  from  the  plays  in  Mr.  Hoe's  library  and 
from  the  ten  that  I  possess,  and  have  found  but  one  typographical  error: 
on  page  170,  line  1,  the  date  of  A  Contention  for  Honour  and  Riches 
should  read  "1633"  not  "1653." 

Hoe,  Robert. 

Catalogue  of  the  Library  of  Robert  Hoe  of  New  York  .  .  . 

Part  I — L  to  Z.     To  be  sold  by  auction  beginning  on  Monday, 

May    1,    191 1,   by   the  Anderson   Auction   Company,  .  .  .  New 

York.  .  .  . 

The  Shirley  items  (pp.  513-519)  fetched,  according  to  the  "Priced 
List"  subsequently  issued,  the  following  prices: 

3023.  The  Wedding,  1629 $305.00 

3024.  The  Grateful  Servant,  1630 180.00 

3025.  The  School  of  Complement,  163 1     ....  190.00 

3026.  Changes:  or,  Love  in  a  Maze,  1632       .      .      .  145.00 

3027.  The  Bird  in  a  Cage,  1633 175.00 

3028.  A  Contention  for  Honour  and  Riches,  1633  105.00 

3029.  The  Triumph  of  Peace,  1633,  2d  issue       .      .  90.00 

3030.  The  Witty  Fair  One,  1633 185.00 

C433] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

3031.  The   Traitor,    1635 $150.00 

3032.  The  Example,  1637 150.00 

3033.  The  Gamester,  1637 105.00 

3034.  Hyde  Park,  1637 160.00 

3035.  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  1637 105.00 

3036.  The  Young  Admiral,  1637 80.00 

3037.  The  Duke's  Mistress,  1638 200.00 

3038.  The  Royal  Master,  1638,  Irish  issue           .      .  265.00 

3039.  The  Royal  Master,  1638,  London  issue  55-oo 

3040.  The  Maid's  Revenge,  1639 160.00 

3041.  The  Constant  Maid,  1640 55-oo 

3042.  The  Coronation,   1640 180.00 

3043.  The  Humorous  Courtier,  1640 70.00 

3044.  Love's  Cruelty,   1640 115.00 

3045.  The  Opportunity,  1640 85.00 

3046.  The  Arcadia,  1640 200.00 

3047.  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland,  1640 205.00 

3048.  Six  New  Plays,  1653 135.00 

3049.  Poems,   1646 155.00 

3050.  Via  ad  Latinam  Linguam  Complanata,  1649  .  7500 

3051.  The  Cardinal,  1652 250.00 

3052.  The  Doubtful  Heir,  1652 25.00 

3053.  The  Gentleman  of  Venice,  1655       ....  220.00 

3054.  The  Politician,  1655 80.00 

3055.  Honoria  and  Mammon;  The  Contention  of 

Ajax  and  Ulysses,  1659 105.00 

3056.  The  Triumph  of  Beauty,  1646;  Honoria  and 

Mammon,  1659;  The  Contention  of  Ajax 

and  Ulysses,  n.d 140.00 

3057.  Andromana,  by  J.  S.,  1660 100.00 

3058.  Love  will  find  out  the  Way,  by  T.  B.,  1661  50.00 

3059.  The  Opportunity,  n.d.  (sheets  of  1640,  with 

new  imprint) 75-oo 

3060.  Dramatic  Works,   1833 95-°o 

Hoe,  Robert. 

Catalogue  of  the  Library  of  Robert  Hoe  of  New  York  .  .  . 
Part  II — L  to  Z.  To  be  sold  by  auction  beginning  on  Monday, 
January  15,  19 12,  by  the  Anderson  Auction  Company,  .  .  .  New- 
York.  .  .  . 

The  Shirley  items  (p.  488)  fetched,  according  to  the  "Priced  List"  sub- 
sequently issued,  the  following  amounts: 

3068.  The  Wedding,   1633    (2d  edition)      ....  $25.00 

3069.  The  Grateful  Servant,  1637  (2d  edition)     .      .  30.00 

3070.  The  School  of  Complement,  1637  (2d  edition)  .  10.00 

[434] 


bibliography:  PART  II 

3071.  The  Doubtful  Heir,  1652 $35.00 

3072.  Six  New  Plays,  1653 50.00 

3073.  Honoria  and  Mammon;  The  Contention  of 

Ajax  and  Ulysses,  1659 4-°° 

Howard,  J.  J. 
See  Visitation  of  London. 

Hunter,  Joseph. 

Chorus    Vatum    Anglicanorum.      Collections    concerning    the 

Poets  and  Verse-Writers  of  the  English  Nation.    By  Joseph  Hun-         ,-, 

ter,  F.  S.  A.  1845.    Volume  III.  I 

Pages  417-422  present  an  ill-digested  but  extensive  body  of  material, 
biographical,  genealogical,  and  bibliographical,  concerning  James  and 
Henry  Shirley. 

Hutton,  W.  H. 

University  of  Oxford.  College  Histories.  S.  John  Baptist  Col- 
lege, by  William  Holden  Hutton,  B.D.,  Fellow,  Tutor,  and  Pre- 
centor, and  formerly  Librarian,  of  S.  John  Baptist  College;  Ex- 
amining Chaplain  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Ely.   London.  .  .  .   1898. 

Hutton's  references  (pp.  92-93)  to  Shirley's  possible  connection  with 
the  college  are  based  largely  upon  Wood;  but  he  makes  an  interesting 
reference  to  a  manuscript  book  of  the  reign  of  Charles  I,  by  a  St.  John's 
man,  Abraham  Wright:  "In  a  MS.  book  of  his  are  some  shrewd  comments 
on  the  literature  of  his  day,  on  the  plays  of  Ben  Jonson,  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher,  on  the  S.  John's  man  Shirley,  and  on  Shakspere,  with  short 
shrewd  comments  on  the  plays"  (p.  90). 

Kingsley,  Charles. 

Plays  and  Puritans. 

Being  pp.  3-79  in : 

Plays  and  Puritans  and  other  Historical  Essays.  By  Charles 
Kingsley.    London:  .  .  .   1885.  .  .  . 

Otherwise  entitled: 

The  Works  of  Charles  Kingsley.     Volume  XVI.     Plays  and 

Puritans.    London.  .  .  .   1885. 

On  pp.  53-58,  Kingsley  discusses  Shirley's  The  Gamester  as  an  exam- 
ple of  the  immorality  of  the  seventeenth-century  drama. 

[435  3 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Krapp,  G.  P. 

The  Legend  of  Saint  Patrick's  Purgatory:  its  later  literary  his- 
tory. A  dissertation  .  .  .  Johns  Hopkins  University  ...  By 
George  Philip  Krapp.  .  .  .  Baltimore,  .  .  .   1900. 

In  note  2,  p.  vi,  Krapp  is  "inclined  to  think"  that  Shirley's  intended  sub- 
ject for  the  promised  second  part  of  St.  Patrick  for  Ireland  was  St.  Pat- 
rick's Purgatory. 

Lamb,  Charles. 

Specimens  of  English  Dramatic  Poets,  who  lived  about  the  time 
of  Shakspeare.  With  notes.  By  Charles  Lamb.  London:  .  .  . 
1808. 

Lamb  quotes  at  length  from  Chabot  (pp.  453-459),  The  Maid's  Re- 
venge (pp.  459-469),  The  Politician  (pp.  470-472),  The  Brothers  (pp. 
473-480),  and  The  Lady  of  Pleasure  (pp.  481-484).  His  critical  comment 
(p.  459)  is  as  follows: 

"Shirley  claims  a  place  amongst  the  worthies  of  this  period,  not  so  much 
for  any  transcendent  genius  in  himself,  as  that  he  was  the  last  of  a  great 
race,  all  of  whom  spoke  nearly  the  same  language,  and  had  a  set  of 
moral  feelings  and  notions  in  common.  A  new  language  and  quite  a  new 
turn  of  tragic  and  comic  interest  came  in  with  the  Restoration." 

Langbaine,  Gerard,  The  Younger. 

An  Account  of  the  English  Dramatick  Poets.  Or,  Some  Ob- 
servations and  Remarks  On  the  Lives  and  Writings,  of  all  those 
that  have  Publish'd  either  Comedies,  Tragedies,  Tragi-Comedies, 
Pastorals,  Masques,  Interludes,  Farces,  or  Opera's  in  the  English 
Tongue.  By  Gerard  Langbaine.  Oxford,  Printed  by  L.  L.  for 
George  West,  and  Henry  Clements.    An.  Dom.  1691. 

From  the  copy  in  the  British  Museum:  01 1795.  ee.  1. 
Langbaine's  account  of  Shirley  (pp.  474-485)  shows  little  influence  of 
Dryden  or  of  Oldham.  On  the  contrary,  he  opens  with  praise  of  Shirley 
that  is,  at  least  in  part,  an  echo  of  Edward  Phillips,  1675:  "James  Shir- 
ley .  .  .  One  of  such  Incomparable  parts  that  he  was  the  Chief  of  the 
Second-rate  Poets:  and  by  some  has  been  thought  even  equal  to  Fletcher 
himself."  Langbaine  goes  on  to  say,  of  Shirley's  plays:  "Of  these  I  have 
seen  four  since  my  Remembrance,  two  of  which  were  acted  at  the  King's 
House;  and  the  other  two  presented  at  the  Duke's  Theatre,  in  Little  Lin- 
colns-Inn  Fields:  viz.  Court  Secret,  Chances  [sic],  Grateful  Servant, 
School  of  Compliments  [sic]."     He  gives  a  paragraph  to  each  of  Shirley's 

[436:] 


bibliography:  PART  II 

plays;  and  concludes  his  account  by  quoting  with  approval  four  lines  by 
Hall  to  "the  surviving  Honour  and  Ornament  of  the  English  Scene: 

"Yet  this  I  dare  assert,  when  Men  have  nam'd 
Johnson  (the  Nation's  Laureat,)  the  fam'd 
Beaumont,  and  Fletcher,  he,  that  cannot  see 
Shirley,  the  fourth,  must  forfeit  his  best  Eye." 

Langbaine,  Gerard,  the  Younger,  revised  by  Charles 
Gildon. 
The  Lives  and  Characters  of  the  English  Dramatick  Poets. 
Also  An  Exact  Account  of  all  the  Plays  that  were  ever  yet  Printed 
in  the  English  Tongue;  their  Double  Titles,  the  Places  where 
Acted,  the  Dates  when  Printed,  and  the  Persons  to  whom  Dedi- 
cated ;  with  Remarks  and  Observations  on  most  of  the  said  Plays. 
First  begun  by  Mr.  Langbain,  improv'd  and  continued  down  to 
this  Time,  by  a  Careful  Hand.    London:  .  .  .     1699. 

Pages  131-134  are  a  revision  and  condensation  of  the  sketch  in  Lang- 
baine's  Account  of  1691.    Significant  is  the  change  of  tone: 

"James  Shirley  .  .  .  was  once  of  Grays-Inn,  and  Servant  to  the  King, 
and  a  Poet  esteemed  in  the  Days  of  Charles  the  First.  Mr.  Langbain 
gives  him  no  small  Praise,  and  indeed  he  does  to  most  of  the  indifferent 
Poets,  so  that  shou'd  a  Stranger  to  our  Poets  read  him,  they  wou'd  make 
an  odd  Collection  of  our  English  Writers,  for  they  wou'd  be  sure  to  take 
Heywood,  Shirley,  &c,  and  leave  Dryden,  &c."  (p.  131.) 

Lawrence,  W.  J. 

The  Elizabethan  Playhouse  and  Other  Studies  by  W.  J.  Law- 
rence. Illustrated.  Shakespeare  Head  Press.  Stratford-upon- 
Avon.    MCMXII. 

For  the  staging  of  The  Doubtful  Heir  and  The  Triumph  of  Peace,  see 
pp.  53,  100-103. 

Lehman,  Ezra. 

The  Tragedies  of  Chapman  derived  from  French  Historical 
Material. 

Being  pp.  5-37  in  : 

Publications  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Series  in  Phi- 
lology and  Literature.     Volume  X.     The  Tragedie  of  Chabot, 

[437] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Admirall  of  France.  Written  by  George  Chapman  and  James 
Shirley.  Reprinted  from  the  Quarto  of  1639.  Edited  with  an 
Introduction  and  Notes  by  Ezra  Lehman,  sometime  Harrison  Fel- 
low in  English,  University  of  Pennsylvania.  Published  for  the 
University.     Philadelphia,  1906.  .  .  . 

Pages  24-28  excellently  summarize  the  evidence  concerning  the  col- 
laboration of  Chapman  and  Shirley  in  Chabot. 

Malone,  Edmond. 

History  of  the  English  Stage. 

In  Volume  I,  Part  II  of: 

The  Plays  and  Poems  of  William  Shakspeare,  in  ten  volumes; 

...  to  which  are  added  ...  an  historical  account  of  the  English 

stage;  ...  by  Edmond  Malone.  .  .  .  London;  .  .  .  MD  CC  XC. 

For  the  student  of  Shirley,  Malone's  History  is  especially  important  for 
its  summaries  and  extracts  from  the  lost  office-book  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert, 
Master  of  the  Revels. 

Malone,  Edmond. 

An  Enlarged  History  of  the  Stage. 

In: 

The  Plays  and  Poems  of  William  Shakspeare  with  the  correc- 
tions and  illustrations  of  various  commentators:  comprehending  a 
Life  of  the  Poet  and  an  Enlarged  History  of  the  Stage,  by  the  late 
Edmond  Malone.  With  a  new  glossarial  index.  .  .  .  Vol.  III. 
London:  .  .  .   1821. 

This  edition,  like  that  of  1790,  contains  Malone's  extracts  from  the  no 
longer  extant  office-book  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  Master  of  the  Revels. 
For  Shirley,  see  especially  III,  231-242.  For  the  Lord  Chamberlain's  let- 
ter to  the  Stationers'  Company,  June  10,  1637,  see  pp.  160-161,  note.  For  the 
Cockpit  list  of  August  10,  1639,  see  pp.  159-160,  note.  For  post-Restora- 
tion revivals  of  Shirley,  see  pp.  272-276.  In  the  list  of  plays  by  Shirley 
licensed  by  Sir  Henry  Herbert,  one  misprint  occurs:  the  date  of  the  li- 
censing of  The  Gentleman  of  Venice  should  be  1639,  not  1629.  That  the 
error  in  this  edition  is  typographical  appears  both  from  the  fact  that  the 
date  appears  correctly  in  Malone's  edition  of  1790  and  from  the  fact  that, 
in  a  list  chronologically  arranged,  this  "1629"  stands  between  "1638"  and 
"1640." 

C438: 


bibliography:  PART  II 

Merchant  Taylors'  School. 

MS.  Register. 

The  book  is  without  title-page;  but  upon  p.  i  appears  the  heading: 
"The  Names  of  all  those  who  have  been  Chief  Masters  of  Merchant  Tay- 
lors School  in  the  Parish  of  Laurence  Pountney,  London,  wch  began  Anno 
Domini  1561,  Elisabeths  R.  3'°,  with  the  time  of  their  Entrance  upon  and 
Continuance  in  the  place";  and  upon  p.  2  appears  the  heading:  "The 
Register  of  the  Schooles  Probation." 

References  to  Shirley  appear  in  the  tables  for  December  n,  1608; 
March  11,  September  n,  and  December  n,  1609;  March  n,  September 
n,  and  December  11,  1610;  March  11,  September  11,  and  December  11, 
1611;  and  March  11,  1612.  The  pages  whence  references  were  taken  for 
this  monograph  were  all  in  a  good  state  of  preservation,  the  writing 
good  and  clear,  and  all  figures  distinctly  made.  Unfortunately  several 
gaps  occur  throughout,  owing  to  missing  pages. 

MOULTON,  C.  W. 

The  Library  of  Literary  Criticism  of  English  and  American 

Authors.     Volume   II.      1 639-1 729.     Edited   by  Charles  Wells 

Moulton  assisted  by  a  corps  of  able  contributors.     The  Moulton 

Publishing  Company.    Buffalo,  New  York.     1901. 

The  biographical  and  critical  account  of  Shirley,  pp.  189-193,  is  an 
extensive  but  undiscriminating  compilation  from  some  twenty  "authorities." 

Murray,  J.  T. 

English  Dramatic  Companies,    1 558-1 642.     By  John  Tucker 

Murray,  M.A.     Sometime  Edward  William  Hooper  Fellow  of 

Harvard  University.    Volume  I.    London  Companies,  1 558-1 642. 

London:  .  .  .   1910. 

This  work  includes  excellent  accounts  of  the  three  companies  with 
which  Shirley  was  successively  connected:  the  Queen's  men  of  the  Phoenix 
in  Drury  Lane,  the  later  company  of  the  same  name  at  Salisbury  Court, 
and  the  King's  men  of  the  Black  Friars  and  Globe  theaters. 

Nation,  The. 

An  anonymous  and  untitled  paragraph  recording  a  perform- 
ance of  Shirley's  The  Opportunity  at  the  University  of  Illinois, 
June  1,  1906. 

On  page  491  of: 

The  Nation.    A  Weekly  Journal  devoted  to  Politics,  Literature, 

[439] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Science  &  Art.    Volume  LXXXII,  from  January  i,  1906,  to  June 
30,  1906.    New  York.    New  York  Evening  Post  Company.    1906. 

The  paragraph  is  as  follows: 

"A  performance  of  James  Shirley's  The  Opportunity,  the  first,  it  is  be- 
lieved, since  the  seventeenth  century,  was  given  by  the  members  of  the 
Alethenai  and  Philomathean  Literary  Societies  of  the  University  of  Illi- 
nois on  Friday  evening,  June  1.  The  stage,  writes  a  correspondent,  which 
was  built  on  the  south  campus,  was  enclosed  at  the  back  and  sides  with 
green  cloth,  with  trees  showing  above.  The  different  scenes  were  indi- 
cated by  appropriate  properties,  brought  in  and  off  by  young  men  in  crim- 
son velvet  doublets ;  and  most  of  the  entrances  and  exits  were  made  from 
the  sides.  To  atone  for  the  absence  of  scenery,  which  was  hardly  felt, 
the  costumes  were  markedly  handsome.  The  text  used  was  about  three 
quarters  the  length  of  the  original,  cuts  being  required  both  by  the  change 
of  taste  and  by  the  time  element.  The  play  combines  romantic  intrigue, 
based  upon  mistaken  identity,  with  splendid  low  comedy;  and,  in  spite  of 
its  many  conventionalities,  it  scored  a  complete  success.  The  plot  was 
unfolded  with  absolute  clearness,  even  to  those  unfamiliar  with  the  story. 
The  acting  was  fully  up  to  the  standard  set  by  the  performance  of  Friar 
Bacon  last  year." 


Neilson,  W.  A. 

Ford  and  Shirley.  By  W.  A.  Neilson,  M.A.  (Edinburgh), 
Ph.D.  (Harvard),  Professor  of  English  in  Harvard  University. 

Being  Chapter  VIII  in : 

The  Cambridge  History  of  English  Literature.  Edited  by  A. 
W.  Ward,  Litt.D.,  F.B.A.,  Master  of  Peterhouse,  and  A.R. 
Waller,  M.A.,  Peterhouse.  Volume  VI.  The  Drama  to  1642. 
Part  II.  New  York:  G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons.  Cambridge,  Eng- 
land: University  Press.    1910. 

Neilson's  contribution  is  a  readable  and  scholarly  account  of  Shirley's 
life  and  works. 

Neilson,  W.  A. 

The  Chief  Elizabethan  Dramatists  excluding  Shakespeare.  Se- 
lected Plays  .  .  .  edited  ...  by  William  Allan  Neilson,  Ph.D., 
Professor  of  English,  Harvard  University.  Boston  and  New  York 
.  .  .       191 1. 

Contents  (for  Shirley)  :  The  Lady  of  Pleasure,  pp.  800-829;   The  Car- 

[440] 


bibliography:  part  ii 

dinal,  pp.  830-853;  Notes  on  these  plays,  p.  860;  Bibliography  of  Shirley 
(erroneously  including  Gartner's  study  of  John  Shirley),  p.  867;  Bio- 
graphical sketch,  p.  874. 

NlSSEN,  P. 

James  Shirley.  Ein  Beitrag  zur  englischen  Litteraturgeschichte. 
Von  Oberlehrer  Dr.  P.  Nissen. 

Being  pp.  1—26  in: 

Realschule  in  Eilbeck  zu  Hamburg.  Bericht  uber  das  Schuljahr 
1900-01.  .  .  .  Hamburg,  1901.  .  .  .    Progr.  Nr.  804. 

This  study,  which  was  intended  as  a  biographical  introduction  to  a 
more  extensive  work,  is,  on  the  whole,  the  most  scholarly  life  of  Shirley 
that  has  yet  appeared.  I  heartily  second  the  words  of  Glode  (Englische 
Studien,  xxxiv,  394)  :  "To  the  continuation  of  Nissen's  study,  which  is  to 
give  a  review  of  Shirley's  dramatic  works,  and  to  be  devoted  to  the 
consideration  of  individual  plays,  and  especially  to  the  relation  of  the 
poet  to  his  sources,  we  look  forward  with  interest." 

Nissen,  P. 

For  a  review  of  his  James  Shirley,  see  Glode,  O. 

Oldham,  John. 

The  Works  of  Mr.  John  Oldham,  Together  with  his  Remains. 
London.  Printed  for  H.  Hindmarsh,  at  the  Golden  Ball  in  Corn- 
hil,  MDCXCVIII. 

In  Book  in,  p.  163,  in  a  poem  entitled  "A  Satyr.  The  Person  of 
Spencer  is  brought  in,  Dissuading  the  Author  from  the  Study  of  Poetry, 
and  shewing  how  little  it  is  esteem'd  and  encourag'd  in  this  present  Age," 
occur  the  following  lines: 

"How  many  Poems  writ  in  ancient  time, 
Which  thy  Fore-fathers  had  in  great  esteem, 
Which  in  the  crowded  Shops  bore  any  rate, 
And  sold  like  News-Books,  and  Affairs  of  State, 
Have  grown  contemptible,  and  slighter  since, 
As  Pordage,  Fleckno,  or  the  British  Prince? 

And  so  may'st  thou  perchance  pass  up  and  down, 
And  please  a  while  th'  admiring  Court  and  Town, 
Who  after  shalt  in  Duck-lane  Shops  be  thrown, 
To  mould  with  Silvester  and  Shirley  there, 
And  truck  for  pots  of  Ale  next  Stourbridg-Fair." 

L>4i:i 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Page,  William. 

The  Victoria  History  of  the  County  of  Hertfordshire  edited  by 
William  Page,  F.S.A.  Volume  Two.  London.  Archibald  Con- 
stable and  Company  Limited.     1908. 

In  the  section  on  "Schools,"  contributed  by  A.  F.  Leach,  M.A.,  F.S.A.,  a 
brief  reference  to  Shirley's  head-mastership  at  St.  Albans  appears  on 
p.  63. 

Parrott,  T.  M. 

The  Tragedy  of  Chabot :  Introduction. 

Being  pp.  631—637  in: 

The  Plays  and  Poems  of  George  Chapman.  The  Tragedies. 
Edited  with  introductions  and  notes  by  Thomas  Marc  Parrott, 
Ph.D.,  Professor  of  English  Literature  at  Princeton  University. 
London:  George  Routledge  &  Sons,  Limited.  New  York:  E.  P. 
Dutton  &  Co.  [1910]. 

A  scholarly  discussion  of  Chapman's  sources  and  of  Shirley's  revision. 

Peeke,  Richard. 

Three  to  One.  Being  an  English-Spanish  combat  performed  by 
a  Western  Gentleman  of  Tavistock  in  Devonshire,  with  an  Eng- 
lish quarterstaff,  against  three  Spaniards  [at  once]  with  rapiers 
and  poniards;  at  Sherries  [Xeres]  in  Spain,  the  15th  day  of  No- 
vember 1625:  in  the  presence  of  Dukes,  Condes,  Marquises,  and 
other  great  Dons  of  Spain ;  being  the  Council  of  War.  The  author 
of  this  book,  and  the  actor  in  this  encounter;  R[ichard]  Peeke. 
Printed  at  London  for  I.  T.  and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop. 

Being  pp.  621—643  in: 

An  English  Garner.  Ingatherings  from  our  History  and  Litera- 
ture, by  Edward  Arber,  F.S.A.  .  .  .  Volume  I.  .  .  .  MD  CCC 
XCVII. 

This  pamphlet  is  the  source  of  the  anonymous  play  published  by  Bullen 
as  Dicke  of  Devonshire,  which  Fleay  accounts  Shirley's  lost  play  The  Bro- 
thers of  1626. 

Pepys,  Samuel. 

The  Diary  of  Samuel  Pepys  .  .  .  transcribed  by  the  late  Rev. 

[442] 


bibliography:  part  ii 

Mynors  Bright,  M.A.,  .  .  .  edited  ...  by  Henry  B.  Wheatley, 
F.S.A.  .  .  .  London  .  .  .   1893  .  .  . 

Nine  volumes,  1893-1899. 

Pepys  speaks  of  attending  the  following  plays  by  Shirley:  October  10, 
1661,  The  Traitor  (11,  112);  October  2,  1662,  The  Cardinal  (11,  329); 
August  18,  1664,  The  Court  Secret  (iv,  206-207)  ;  August  5,  1667,  Love 
Tricks,  or  The  School  of  Complements  (vn,  54);  December  30,  1667, 
Love's  Cruelty  (vil,  239-240)  ;  July  11,  1668,  Hyde  Park  (vm,  60).  Pepys 
speaks  also  of  attending,  on  May  21,  1662,  The  French  Dancing  Mistress, 
which  some  editors  have  sought  to  identify  with  the  play  mentioned  by 
Herbert  as  A  Dancing  Master,  December  10,  1661  (Malone's  Shakspere, 
1821,  III,  275),  and  with  Shirley's  The  Ball,  which,  in  the  list  appended 
to  The  Cardinal,  1652,  bears  the  double  title,  The  Ball,  or  French  Dancing 
Master. 


Phillips,  Edward. 

Theatrum  Poetarum,  or  A  Compleat  Collection  of  the  Poets, 

Especially  the  most  Eminent,  of  all  Ages.     By  Edward  Phillips 

.  .  .  London  .  .  .  M.DC.LXXV. 

"James  Shirly,  a  just  pretender  to  more  than  the  meanest  place  among 
the  English  poets,  but  most  especially  for  dramatic  Poesy,  in  which  he 
hath  written  both  very  much;  and  for  the  most  part  with  that  felicity  that 
by  some  he  is  accounted  little  inferior  to  Fletcher  himself"  (p.  80). 

Plays,  A  Select  Collection  of  Old.    (Anon.) 
See  Dodsley,  Robert. 


Prynne,  William. 

Histrio-Mastix.  The  Players  Scovrge,  or,  Actors  Tragsdie, 
Divided  into  Two  Parts.  Wherein  it  is  largely  evidenced,  by 
divers  Arguments,  by  the  concurring  Authorities  and  Resolutions 
of  sundry  texts  of  Scripture ;  of  the  whole  Primitive  Church,  both 
under  the  Law  and  Gospell ;  of  55  Synodes  and  Councels;  of  71 
Fathers  and  Christian  Writers,  before  the  yeare  of  our  Lord  1200; 
of  above  150  foraigne  and  domestique  Protestant  and  Popish  Au- 
thors, since;  of  40  Heathen  Philosophers,  Historians,  Poets;  of 
many  Heathen,  many  Christian  Nations,  Republiques,  Emperors, 
Princes,  Magistrates;  of  sundry  Apostolicall,  Canonicall,  Imperiall 

[443] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Constitutions;  and  of  our  owne  English  Statutes,  Magistrates, 
Vniversities,  Writers,  Preachers: 

That  popular  Stage-playes  (the  very  Pompes  of  the  Divell 
which  we  renounce  in  Baptisme,  if  we  beleeve  the  Fathers)  are 
sinfull,  heathenish,  lewde,  ungodly  Spectacles,  and  most  pernicious 
Corruptions;  condemned  in  all  ages,  as  intolerable  Mischiefes  to 
Churches,  to  Republickes,  to  the  manners,  mindes  and  soules  of 
men.  And  that  the  Profession  of  Play-poets,  of  Stage  players;  to- 
gether with  the  penning,  acting,  and  frequenting  of  Stage-playes, 
are  unlawfull,  infamous  and  misbeseeming  Christians.  All  pre- 
tences to  the  contrary  are  here  likewise  fully  answered ;  and  the 
unlawfulnes  of  acting,  of  beholding  Academicall  Enterludes, 
briefly  discussed ;  besides  sundry  other  particulars  concerning  Danc- 
ing, Dicing,  Health-drinking,  &c.  of  which  the  Table  will  inform 
you. 

By  William  Prynne,  an  Vtter-Barrester  of  Lincolnes  Inne. 

•  ••••••••* 

London,  Printed  by  E.  A.  and  W.  I.  for  Michael  Sparke,  and 

are  to  be  sold  at  the  Blue  Bible,  in  Greene  Arbour,  in  little  Old 

Bayly,  1633. 

From  the  title-page  of  the  copy  belonging  to  the  library  of  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary.  The  passages  concerning  Women  actors  are  pp.  162, 
214-215,  1002,  1003,  and  the  index  entry;  concerning  Henry  Shirley,  p.  553. 

Quarterly  Review. 

An  anonymous  review  entitled: 

The  Dramatic  Works  and  Poems  of  James  Shirley  ...  by  the 
late  William  Gifford  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  the  Rev.  Alexander  Dyce 
.  .  .  London,  1832  [sic]. 

Being  pp.  I-2Q  in: 

The  Quarterly  Review.     Vol.  XLIX.     Published  in  April  & 

July,  1833.     London:  John  Murray,  Albemarle  Street.     1833. 

This  review  is  a  spirited  and  able  notice  of  the  life  and  writings  of 
James  Shirley  as  presented  in  the  Gifford  and  Dyce  edition  of  1833.  The 
reviewer  gives  us  first  a  picture  of  Shirley's  times  and  a  summary  of  his 
life;  then,  after  some  general  critical  considerations,  he  discusses  in  turn 
the  work  of  Shirley  in  tragedy,  in  romantic  tragicomedy,  and  in  comedy 

[444:1 


bibliography:  PART  II 

of  manners;  and  illustrates  his  discussion  with  extensive  extracts  from 
The  Traitor,  The  Cardinal,  The  Brothers,  and  The  Lady  of  Pleasure. 
He  concludes  with  commendation  of  the  labors  of  Dyce  and  Gifford. 

RlSTINE,  F.  H. 

English  Tragicomedy,  Its  Origin  and  History.  By  Frank  Hum- 
phrey Ristine,  Ph.D.  New  York.  The  Columbia  University 
Press.     1 910. 

Ristine's  discussion  of  Shirley,  pp.  135-139,  is  an  acceptable  account  of 
Shirley's  tragicomedies.     See  also  pp.  xiii,  124,  140,  150,  155,  and  184. 

Rivers's  alleged  authorship  of  The  Traitor. 
See: 

Shirley,  James:  The  Traytor,  1692. 
Gentleman's  Journal,  1692. 

Robinson,  C.  J. 

A  Register  of  the  Scholars  admitted  to  Merchant  Taylors' 
School,  from  A.D.  1562  to  1874,  compiled  ...  by  the  Rev. 
Charles  J.  Robinson,  M.A.,  .  .  .   1882. 

The  references  to  Shirley  (Vol.  1,  p.  60,  and  note)  are  of  little  value. 

s.,j. 

Andromana:  or  the  Merchant's  Wife.    The  scaene,  Iberia.     By 

J.  S.     London,  Printed  for  John  Bellinger,  and  are  to  be  sold  at 

his  shop  in  Cliffords-Inn-lane  in  Fleet-street,  1660. 

Ascribed  to  Shirley  merely  because  of  the  initials. 

For  reprints,  see  the  several  editions  of  Dodsley's  Old  Plays. 

St.  George,  Sir  Henry,  Kt.,  Richmond  Herald,  etc. 
See  Visitation  of  London. 

St.  Giles,  Cripplegate. 

The  Register  Booke.  Belonging  to  the  Parish  Church  of  S. 
Giles  without   Cripplegate   in   London,   of   all   the  Christenings, 

[445] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Burials,  Weddings,  beginning  the  first  day  of  March,  1606,  in  the 

fift  yeare  of  our  most  gracious  Soveraigne  Lord,  King  James.    &c. 

[1624/5] 
"Christnings  in  February. — 
"Mathias  sonne  of  Mr.  James  Shurley  gentleman  —  26" 

St.  Giles  in  the  Fields. 

St.  Giles  in  Ye  Fields.    1638-68. 

"October  1666.  .  .  . 

Mr.  James  Sherley 


I  Mris.  Frances  Sherley  his  wife" 

St.  Mary  Woolchurch. 

Register. 

"I596 

"James  the  sonne  of  James  Sharlie  was  baptized  the  seventh  of  Sep- 
tember." 

St.  Mary  Woolchurch. 

The  Transcript  of  the  Registers  of  the  United  Parishes  of  S. 

Mary  Woolnoth  and  S.  Mary  Woolchurch  Haw,  in  the  City  of 

London,  from  their  Commencement  1538  to  1760  ...  By  J.  M. 

S.  Brooke,  M.A.,  F.R.G.S.,  ...  and  A.  W.  C.  Hallen,  M.A., 

F.S.A.,  .  .  .  London:  .  .  .  1886.  .  .  . 

For  data  for  a  genealogy  of  "James,  son  of  James  Sharlie,"  see  pp. 
lviii,  300,  301,  302,  308,  310,  311,  312,  313,  347,  370,  371,  372,  378,  379,  383, 
384,  and  388. 

SCHELLING,  F.  E. 

Elizabethan  Drama,  1558-1642.     A  History  of  the  Drama  in 

England  from  the  Accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  the  Closing 

of  the  Theaters,  to  which  is  prefixed  a  Resume  of  the  Earlier 

Drama  from  its  Beginnings.     By  Felix  E.  Schelling,  Professor  in 

the  University  of  Pennsylvania.     Two  volumes.     Volume  Two. 

Boston  and  New  York:  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Company.     1908. 

Pages  284-297  in  Volume  II  are  an  acceptable  critique  of  Shirley's 
realistic  plays;  pages  312-326  are  an  equally  acceptable  account  of  his 
romantic  plays.     Schelling's  brief  discussion  of  Shirleian  bibliography  is 


[446] 


bibliography:  part  ii 

to  be  found  chiefly  on  page  534.  It  is  remarkable  chiefly  for  one  error — 
an  error  which  it  has  successfully  passed  onward  to  The  Cambridge  His- 
tory of  English  Literature.  Henceforth  let  bibliographers  take  notice  that 
O.  Gartner's  Shirley,  sein  Leben  und  Werken,  Halle  Diss.,  1904,  refers 
not  to  James  Shirley,  but  to  John  (i366?-i456). 

SCHIPPER,  J. 

James  Shirley,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Werke.  Nebst  einer  Uber- 
setzung  seines  Dramas  "The  Royal  Master,"  von  J.  Schipper. 
Mit  einem  auf  dem  in  der  Bodleiana  zu  Oxford  Befindlichen  Por- 
trat  Shirleys  Beruhenden  Bilde  des  Dichters.  Wien  und  Leipzig. 
Wilhelm  Braumiiller.  .  .  .   191 1. 

As  a  popular  introduction  to  his  translation  of  The  Royal  Master, 
Schipper's  three  hundred  and  sixty-one  pages  on  the  life  and  works 
of  Shirley  must  be  accounted  excellent.  As  a  contribution,  however,  to 
Shirleian  scholarship  or  to  Shirleian  criticism,  the  book  is  disappointing. 

The  half-tone  picture  of  Shirley  which  forms  the  frontispiece  is  a 
reproduction  not  of  the  Oxford  portrait  but  of  the  Lupton  engraving  of 
1833.  Witness  the  suggestion  of  a  pillar  at  the  left,  the  absence  of  the 
bay-wreath,  and  the  black  mustache. 

Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays,  A.    (Anon.) 
See  Dodsley,  Robert. 

Sheil,  Richard  L. 

See  Shirley,  James,  revised,  1819. 

Shiels,  Robert. 
See  Cibber,  T. 

Shirley,  E.  P.     (Anon.) 

Stemmata  Shirleiana ;  or  the  Annals  of  the  Shirley  Family,  Lords 
of  Nether  Etindon  in  the  County  of  Warwick,  and  of  Shirley  in 
the  County  of  Derby.  .  .  .  Privately  Printed  .  .  .  Westminster. 
MDCCCXLI. 

First  edition.    See  p.  92  and  passim. 

Shirley,  E.  P.     (Anon.) 

Stemmata  Shirleiana ;  or  the  Annals  of  the  Shirley  Family,  Lords 

[447] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

of  Nether  Etindon  in  the  County  of  Warwick,  and  of  Shirley  in 
the  County  of  Derby.  .  .  .  Second  edition,   Corrected   and   En- 
larged. .  .  .  Westminster,  MDCCCLXXIII. 
See  pp.  119,  269-271,  339,  and  passim, 

Shirley,  E.  P. 

Who  was  Henry  Shirley,  the  Author  of  The  Martyr  d  Soldierf 

Being  pp.  26-27  in: 

Notes  and  Queries:  a  Medium  of  Inter-Communication  for 
Literary  Men,  Artists,  Antiquaries,  Genealogists,  Etc.  .  .  .  Vol- 
ume Twelfth.    July-December,  1855.    London:  .  .  .   1855. 

A  valuable  contribution. 

Shirley,  E.  P. 

The  Noble  and  Gentle  Men  of  England ;  or  notes  touching  the 
Arms  and  Descents  of  the  ancient  knightly  and  gentle  houses  of 
England.  ...  By  Evelyn  Philip  Shirley,  Esq.,  M.A.,  F.S.A.  .  .  . 
Westminster:  .  .  .   Second  Edition,  Corrected,     i860. 

For  a  drawing  of  the  arms  of  Shirley  of  Eatington,  see  p.  254;  for  the 
blazon,  "Paly  of  six,  or  and  azure,  a  quarter  ermine,"  see  p.  255. 

Shirley,  James. 

For  Shirley's  will,  formerly  at  Doctors'  Commons,  see  Somer- 
set House,  Prerogative  Court  of  Canterbury,  Mico,  folio 
170. 

Smith,  G.  Barnett. 

Shirley. 

Being  pp.  584-6 1 0  in: 

The  Gentleman's  Magazine.  Volume  CCXLVI.  January  to 
June,  1880.  .  .  .  Edited  by  Sylvanus  Urban,  Gentleman.  Lon- 
don. .  .  .   1880. 

This  is  a  graceful  essay,  biographical  and  critical :  briefer  than  Swin- 
burne's, more  appreciative  of  Shirley's  merits,  and  yet  more  discriminat- 
ing.    It  concludes: 

"The  truth  is  that  too  much  has  been  made  of  the  charge  that  Shirley 

[44811 


bibliography:  PART  II 

is  but  the  follower  and  close  imitator  of  his  immediate  predecessors.  We 
do  not  see  why  his  laurels  in  tragedy  should  be  regarded  as  being  filched 
from  Webster,  or  his  laurels  in  comedy  from  Fletcher.  Had  he  written 
precisely  contemporaneously  with  them,  his  fame  would  now  have  been 
greater.  He  suffered  by  comparison  with  those  who  had  already  enrap- 
tured the  world  by  their  dazzling  lustre,  and  he  was  charged  with  having 
lit  the  flame  of  his  own  genius  at  their  shrine.  Literary  judgments  have 
been  subject  to  revision  from  the  earliest  ages  of  the  world  until  now; 
and  it  may  be  that  with  a  future  generation  the  dramatic  talents  of  Shir- 
ley will  stand  much  higher  than  they  do  at  present.  His  fine  lyrical 
faculty  is  already  universally  acknowledged,  whereas  for  upwards  of  a 
century  it  met  with  little  recognition;  and  his  position  in  the  realm  of 
dramatic  art  may  yet  come  to  be  equally  assured.  He  is  no  unworthy 
companion  of  the  men  who  filled  with  noble  music  'the  spacious  times  of 
great  Elizabeth'"  (p.  610). 

Some  Account  of  the  English  Stage.    (Anon.) 
See  Genest,  Rev.  John. 

Stage,  English,  Some  Account  of  the.    (Anon.) 
See  Genest,  Rev.  John. 

Stationers'  Register. 

A  Transcript  of  the  Registers  of  the  Company  of  Stationers  of 
London;  1554-1640  A.D.  Volume  IV.  .  .  .  Edited  by  Edward 
Arber.  .  .  .  Privately  printed.    London.     1  May,  1877. 

See  in,  286;  and  iv,  125,  195,  215,  238,  262,  265,  267,  287,  303,  355,  369, 
373.  385,  4i5.  437.  438,  447.  465.  472,  475,  and  482. 

Stemmata  Shirleiana.    (Anon.) 
See  Shirley,  E.  P. 

Stiefel,  A.  L. 

Die  Nachahmung  spanischer  Komodien  in  England  unter  den 
ersten  Stuarts.    Von  A.  L.  Stiefel. 

Being  pp.  iqj—220  in: 

Romanische  Forschungen.  Organ  fur  Romanische  Sprachen 
und  Mittellatein  Herausgegeben  von  Karl  Vollmoller.  V  Band. 
.  .  .   1890. 

This  article  is  devoted  chiefly  to  a  detailed  comparison  between  Shir- 

[449] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

ley's  The  Opportunity  and  Tirso  de  Molina's  El  Castigo  del  Penseque. 
It  asserts,  moreover,  but  does  not  attempt  to  prove,  that  Shirley's  The 
Young  Admiral  is  based  upon  Lope  de  Vega's  Don  Lope  de  Cardona. 

Stiefel,  A.  L. 

Die  Nachahmung  spanischer  Komodien  in  England  unter  den 
ersten  Stuarts.    III. 

Being  pp.  309S50  in : 

Archiv  fur  das  Studium  der  neueren  Sprachen  und  Literaturen 

.  .  .  CXIX  .  .  .   1907. 

This,  a  continuation  of  the  foregoing  article,  is  a  detailed  examination 
of  the  relation  between  Shirley's  The  Young  Admiral  and  Lope  de  Vega's 
Don  Lope  de  Cardona. 

Swinburne,  A.  C. 

Essay  on  the  Poetical  and  Dramatic  Works  of  George  Chap- 
man. 

In: 

The  Works  of  George  Chapman :  Poems  and  Minor  Transla- 
tions. With  an  introduction  by  Algernon  Charles  Swinburne. 
London:  .  .  .   1875. 

For  Swinburne's  opinion  as  to  the  authorship  of  Chabot,  see  p.  xxxii. 

Swinburne,  A.  C. 

James  Shirley. 

Being  pp.  461-478  in : 

The    Fortnightly    Review.      Edited    by    Frank    Harris.      Vol. 

XLVII.     New  Series.    January  1  to  June  1,  1890.     (Vol.  LI  1 1. 

Old  Series.)     London:  .  .  .   1890.  .  .  . 

Despite  the  justice  of  its  concluding  estimate  of  Shirley,  and  the  high 
acceptability  of  portions  here  and  there,  this  essay  by  Swinburne,  consid- 
ered as  a  whole,  is  deeply  disappointing.  The  status  of  Shirleian  criti- 
cism in  the  year  1890  and  the  distinguished  ability  of  Swinburne  as  a 
critic  of  poetry  and  drama,  both  justified  the  expectation  that  this  essay 
would  be  a  notable  contribution  to  the  subject.  But  such  is  not  the  case. 
Indeed,  to  sum  up  my  impressions  of  Swinburne's  essay  upon  Shirley,  I 
can  but  use  the  words  that  Swinburne  himself  applied  to  Shirley's  works: 
the  several  passages  into  which  his  essay  might  be  separated,  "fall  natu- 
rally into  three  categories  or  classes:  those  in  the  first  class  are  very  good, 

[450] 


bibliography:  part  ii 

those  in  the  second  class  are  very  fair,  those  in  the  third  class  are  very 
poor"  (p.  478).  Those  passages  that  deal  with  The  Traitor  and  The 
Example  "belong  beyond  all  question  to  the  first  class";  those  that  deal 
with  certain  of  the  realistic  comedies  "stand  high  in  the  second" ;  of  the 
remaining  passages,  a  majority  belong,  beyond  all  question,  to  the  third. 
In  short,  one  must  say  of  Swinburne's  essay  as  he  says  of  Shirley's  plays: 
"A  considerable  section  ...  is  taken  up  by  such  vapid  and  colorless 
sketches,  such  mere  shadows  or  phantoms  of  invertebrate  and  bloodless 
fancy,  as  leave  no  trace  behind  on  the  memory  but  a  sense  of  tedious 
vanity  and  unprofitable  promptitude  of  apparently  copious  but  actually 
sterile  invention.  .  .  .  They  never  .  .  .  sink  below  a  certain  modest  level 
of  passable  craftsmanship  and  humble  merit;  but  they  never  rise  into 
palpable  distinction  or  cohere  into  substantial  form.  .  .  .  You  read  them, 
and  feel  next  day  as  if  you  had  read  nothing"  (p.  4.61). 

From  the  more  acceptable  portions  of  the  essay,  I  have  quoted  at  length 
in  my  chapters  on  The  Traitor  and  The  Example.  Here,  however,  in 
view  of  the  supposed  importance  of  Swinburne's  contribution,  I  must  not 
leave  unnoted  three  defects. 

In  the  first  place,  Swinburne's  knowledge  of  the  plays  he  criticizes  is 
often  inaccurate  and  superficial.  In  an  article  nearly  eleven  thousand 
words  in  length,  he  dismisses  twelve  plays  with  an  average  of  six  and 
one  fourth  lines  apiece.  Among  these,  he  grants  to  The  Royal  Master, 
one  of  the  most  delightful  of  the  comedies,  but  forty-two  words,  and  to 
The  Duke's  Mistress,  twenty-five.  Even  The  Cardinal,  which  Shirley 
deemed  his  greatest  play,  and  to  which  most  critics  give  at  least  the  second 
place,  Swinburne  dismisses  with  a  perfunctory  quarter-page— one  hundred 
and  forty-four  words.  If  Swinburne's  criticisms  were  illuminating,  we 
could  forgive  their  brevity;  but  they  are  not.  They  have,  despite  their 
dogmatism,  the  tone  of  one  who  has  not  studied  but  skimmed,  of  the 
reader  he  himself  describes,  "who  spends  an  hour  or  so"  (p.  475)  in  the 
perusal  of  a  five-act  play,  of  the  reviewer  who  must  bolt  thirty-three  plays 
in  quick  succession,  without  time  for  mastication  or  digestion.  This  haste 
is  evident  not  only  in  his  superficial  treatment  of  what  he  deems  (not 
always  justly)  the  less  important  plays,  but  even  in  those  that  he  attempts 
to  treat  most  thoroughly.  In  his  criticism  of  The  Traitor,  for  example, 
his  careless  reading  of  the  opening  scene  leads  him  into  a  radical  miscon- 
ception of  Shirley's  motivation.  Of  the  character  of  Cosmo,  he  remarks: 
"The  unreal  unselfishness  of  unnatural  devotion  and  the  sentimental 
vehemence  of  moral  paradox,  which  mark  the  decline  of  English  tragedy 
from  the  level  of  Shakespeare's  more  immediate  followers,  are  flagrant  in 
the  folly  of  such  a  conception  as  this  of  a  lover  who  insists  on  resigning 
his  mistress  against  her  will  to  a  friend  already  betrothed  or  pledged  in 
honor  to  another  woman"  (p.  467).  Now  the  fact  is,  that  unselfishness 
and  devotion  and  sentimental  vehemence  are  precisely  the  qualities 
most  conspicuously  lacking  in  the  character  of  Shirley's  Cosmo  in  the 
scene  discussed.  If  ever  a  man  was  actuated  by  cowardly  and  coldly 
selfish  policy,  that  man  was  Cosmo.     He  saw,  behind  the  manceuvering 

[450 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

of  his  friend  Pisano  and  Pisano's  servant,  the  controlling  hand  of  the 
powerful  and  dangerous  Lorenzo,  and  he  executed  an  instantaneous  re- 
treat. "There  is  an  engine  levell'd  at  my  fate,"  he  says,  "and  I  must 
arm"  {The  Traitor,  I,  i;  Works,  II,  104).  For  this  reason — not  from 
devotion  to  his  friend — did  Cosmo  surrender  his  betrothed.  Such  is  Swin- 
burne's knowledge  of  what  he  accounts  (p.  467)  "the  one  play  which  gives 
its  author  a  place  among  the  tragic  poets  of  Shakespeare's  age  and  coun- 
try" !  If  a  critic  is  thus  superficial  where  he  aims  to  do  his  best,  what  is 
he  at  his  worst? 

This  discussion  of  Swinburne's  superficial  and  inaccurate  knowledge  of 
the  plays  of  Shirley,  leads  directly  to  the  second  count  in  our  indictment: 
that  his  style  is  often  neither  specific  nor  becoming.  For  lack  of  facts, 
he  indulges  in  opprobrious  generalizations;  having  no  case,  he  abuses  the 
opposing  counsel.  He  talks  of  "the  idiotic  monstrosity  of  speculative  im- 
pudence" (p.  473)  ;  of  "the  most  injudicious  and  ineffectual  perversity 
or  debility  of  devotion"  (p.  475)  ;  of  plays  that  are  "an:emic  and  inver- 
tebrate" (p.  462)  ;  of  another  play  that  is  "anaemic  and  invertebrate"  (p. 
471)  ;  of  fancy  that  is  "invertebrate  and  bloodless"  (p.  461)  ;  of  "inverte- 
brate versification"  (p.  475)  ;  of  a  "feebly  preposterous  and  impotently 
imitative  abortion"  (pp.  462-463)  ;  and  of  a  "preposterous  and  irritating 
inanity  of  impotent  invention"   (p.  463). 

Third  and  lastly,  Swinburne's  indifference  to  accuracy  of  fact  leads 
him  repeatedly  into  errors  of  statement  and  of  inference.  I  do  not  now 
refer  to  his  unqualified  ascription  of  The  Country  Captain  to  our  dram- 
atist, although  here,  at  least,  Swinburne  would  rush  in  where  scholars 
fear  to  tread.  I  refer  rather  to  matters  in  which  accuracy  and  certainty 
might  have  been  had  almost  for  the  asking.  For  example,  any  appro- 
priate reference-books  would  have  told  him  that  Charles  I  came  to  the 
throne  in  March,  1625,  and  that  Shirley's  The  Grateful  Servant  was  li- 
censed November  3,  1629,  full  four  years  later;  yet  Swinburne  asserts 
that  "Charles  I  had  been  six  months  on  the  throne  when  this  comedy  was 
licensed"  (p.  466).  Again,  in  his  discussion  of  Shirley's  comedy  The 
Ball,  Swinburne  at  once  sneers  at  the  ladies  and  their  lovers  as  being 
"lamentably  shadowy  and  shapeless"  (p.  470),  misquotes  Shirley's  own 
reference  to  his  having  been  "bribed  to  a  modest  expression  of  their  antic 
gambols"  (p.  471),  and  scoffs  at  the  correctness  of  Shirley's  explanation 
(p.  471).  Yet  he  had  but  to  turn  to  the  oft-quoted  extract  from  Herbert's 
office-book  to  find  a  full  and  official  record  of  the  censoring  of  this  play 
(Malone's  Shakspere,  1821,  in,  231-232),  a  record  which  not  only  proves 
the  essential  truth  of  Shirley's  statement  but  accounts  for  the  shadowiness 
and  shapelessness  of  Shirley's  lords  and  ladies  in  The  Ball. 

In  these  three  respects,  then — in  a  frequent  superficiality  of  acquain- 
tance with  the  plays  discussed,  in  a  tendency  to  substitute  adjectives  for 
specific  facts,  and  in  a  seeming  indifference  to  accuracy  in  matters  of  exact 
scholarship — Swinburne's  essay  is  not  all  that  we  could  wish.  Happy 
were  he,  could  we  say  of  his  position  among  Shirley's  critics  as  he  says 
of  the  place  of  James  Shirley  among  English  poets:  "The  place  of  Swin- 


bibliography:  PART  II 

burne  among  the  critics  of  Shirley  'is  naturally  unpretentious  and  modest: 
it  is  indisputably  authentic  and  secure'"  (p.  478). 

Thorndike,  A.  H. 

Tragedy.     By  Ashley  H.  Thorndike,  Professor  of  English  in 

Columbia  University.  Author  of  "The  Influence  of  Beaumont  and 

Fletcher  on  Shakspere."    Boston  and  New  York  .  .  .   [1908]. 

Pages  229-234  constitute  a  brief  but  acceptable  account  of  Shirley's 
tragedies.    See  also  pp.  199,  235,  237,  238,  240,  251,  252,  255,  256,  282,  344. 

TlERNEY,  M.  A. 

The  History  and  Antiquities  of  the  Castle  and  Town  of  Arun- 
del ;  including  the  Biography  of  its  Earls,  from  the  Conquest  to  the 
Present  Time.  By  the  Rev.  M.  A.  Tierney,  F.S.A.,  Chaplain  to 
his  Grace  the  Duke  of  Norfolk.    Vol.1.    London:  .  .  .   1834. 

In  Volume  1,  on  p.  67,  note  (a)  reads  as  follows: 

"Sir  Ed.  Bishop  was  the  second  Baronet  of  that  name,  of  Parham,  in 
Sussex.  In  the  'Weekly  account  of  certain  special  passages,  &c.  from 
Wednesday,  Jan.  3,  to  the  10th  of  the  same,  1644,'  he  is  said  to  be  the 
person  'who  some  yeares  since  embrued  his  wilful  hands  in  the  blood  of 
Master  Henry  Sherley,  kinsman  to  Mr.  James  Sherley,  the  Playwright, 
and  who  did  excel  him  in  that  faculty.'  " 

Tupper,  James  W. 

The  Relation  of  the  Heroic  Play  to  the  Romances  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher. 

Being  pp.  584-621  in: 

Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association  of  America 

.  .  .  Vol.  XX.     New  Series,  Vol.  XIII.  .  .  .  Baltimore.     1905. 

This  article  makes  no  mention  of  the  plays  of  Shirley;  but  it  clears  the 
way  for  a  study  of  the  relation  of  Shirley's  dramatic  romances  to  the 
heroic  drama  of  the  Restoration. 

Vega  Carpio,  Lope  de. 

Comedia  Famosa  de  Don  Lope  de  Cardona. 
In: 

Decima  Parte  de  las  Comedias  de  Lope  de  Vega  Carpio,  familiar 
del  santo  oficio :  sacadas  de  sus  originales.     Dirigidas  por  el  mismo 

C453] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

al  Exemo  Sr  Marques  de  Santa  Cruz,  Capitan  general  de  la  Es- 
quadro  de  Espafia.     Madrid:  ano  1620. 

In  the  Ticknor  Collection,  Boston  Public  Library:  **D:i48.3,  Vol.  X. 
This  play  is  the  source  of  a  portion  of  Shirley's  romantic  comedy  The 
Young  Admiral.    Stiefel  quotes  an  edition  of  1618. 

Visitation  of  London. 

The  Publications  of  the  Harleian  Society.  Established  A.D. 
MDCCCLXIX.  Volume  XVII.  For  the  year  MD  CCC 
LXXXIII.  The  Visitation  of  London,  Anno  Domini  1633,  1634, 
and  1635.  Made  by  Sr.  Henry  St.  George,  Kt.,  Richmond  Her- 
ald, and  Deputy  and  Marshal  to  Sr.  Richard  St.  George,  Kt., 
Clarencieux  King  of  Arms.  Volume  II.  Edited  by  Joseph  Jack- 
son Howard,  LL.D.,  F.S.A.    London:  1883. 

The  pedigrees  and  arms  of  James  Shirley,  goldsmith,  of  London,  and 
of  his  brother  John,  pp.  235-236,  appear  to  forbid  the  assumption  that 
James  Shirley  the  dramatist  was  a  member  of  their  family. 

Ward,  A.  W. 

James  Shirley. 
Being  pp.  126-133  in: 

Dictionary  of  National  Biography.  Edited  by  Sidney  Lee.  Vol. 
LII.     Shearman— Smirke.     New  York  .  .  .  London  .  .  .   1897. 

Although  sometimes  overpositive  concerning  matters  still  uncertain, 
this  article  must  be  accounted  a  scholarly  summary  of  the  facts  of  Shir- 
ley's life.  Unfortunately,  however,  it  is  marred  by  no  less  than  thirteen 
typographical  errors. 

Page  126,  second  column,  line  35:  The  date  of  St.  Albans  should  be 
"14  Feb.  1639/40,"  not  "1639." 

Page  126,  second  column,  line  38:  The  date  of  the  baptism  of  Mathias 
Shirley  should  be  "26  Feb.  1624/5,"  not  "1624." 

Page  126,  second  column,  line  48:  The  date  of  Love  Tricks  should  be 
"10  Feb.  1624/5,"  not  "4  Feb.  1625/6." 

Page  128,  first  column,  line  10:  The  date  of  The  Traitor  should  be 
"1635,"  not  "1638." 

Page  128,  first  column,  line  46:  Read  "the  hitherto  unprinted  dramas 
by  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,"  not  "ten  hitherto  unprinted  dramas." 

Page  130,  second  column,  line  28:  The  statement  that  The  Wedding 
was  "licensed  9  Feb.  1626"  and  the  reference  to  Fleay  as  authority  on  the 
point,  are  incorrect  in  several  ways.  The  date  is  a  misprint,  occasioned 
by  a  repetition  of  the  date  of  The  Maid's  Revenge,  above:  no  record  of 

C454] 


bibliography:  PART  II 

the  licensing  of  The  Wedding  has  been  preserved.  Fleay's  hypothesis 
concerns  not  the  licensing  but  the  acting  of  The  Wedding;  and  the  date 
he  gives  is  not  "9  Feb."  but  May  31. 

Page  131,  first  column,  line  39:  The  date  of  The  Arcadia  should  be 
"1640,"  not  "1614." 

Page  132,  first  column,  line  34:  The  initials  should  be  "T.  B.,"  not 
"J-  B." 

Page  132,  second  column,  line  10:  The  date  on  which  The  Doubtful 
Heir  was  printed  as  one  of  Six  New  Playes  should  not  be  "1654."  The 
date  on  the  title-page  of  The  Doubtful  Heir  is  "1652";  that  on  the  joint 
title-page  of  Six  New  Playes  is  "1653." 

Page  132,  second  column,  line  34:  The  date  of  The  Duke  should  be 
"17  May,"  not  "7  May." 

Page  133,  first  column,  line  44:  The  date  of  The  Beauties  should  be 
"1633,"  not  "1643." 

Page  133,  first  column,  line  48:  For  "Looke  to  the  Ladies"  read,  "Looke 
to  the  Ladie." 

Page  133,  second  column,  line  21:  For  "T.  G.  Fleay"  read  "F.  G. 
Fleay." 


Ward,  A.  W. 

A  History  of  English  Dramatic  Literature  to  the  Death  of 
Queen  Anne.  By  Adolphus  William  Ward,  Litt.D.,  Hon.  LL.D. 
.  .  .  New  and  Revised  Edition.  Vol.  III.  London  .  .  .  New 
York  .  .  .   1899.  .  .  . 

The  account  of  Shirley's  plays,  in,  89-125,  is,  for  the  most  part,  excel- 
lent. Ward's  chief  weakness,  perhaps,  results  from  his  ignorance  of  the 
work  of  Stiefel  concerning  Shirley's  debt  to  Spanish  sources.  A  few 
misprints,  copied  from  Ward's  article  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biog- 
raphy, occur. 


Ward,  A.  W. 

James  Shirley.  The  Royal  Master.  Edited  with  Critical  Essay 
and  Notes  by  Sir  Adolphus  William  Ward,  Litt.D.,  F.B.A.,  Mas- 
ter of  Peterhouse,  Cambridge. 

Being  pp.  545-652  in : 

Representative  English  Comedies  .  .  .  [edited  by]  .  .  . 
Charles  Mills  Gayley  .  .  .  Volume  III.  .  .  .  New  York,  .  .  . 
1914. 

The  Critical  Essay  occupies  pp.  547-562. 

[455] 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

Whitelocke,  Bulstrode.     (Anon.) 

Memorials  of  the  English  Affairs:  or  an  historical  account  of 
what  passed  from  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  King  Charles  the 
First  to  King  Charles  the  Second  his  happy  Restauration  .  .  . 
London.  .  .  .  MD  C  LXXXII. 

Pages  18-21  give  an  elaborate  account  of  the  presentation  of  Shirley's 
Triumph  of  Peace  by  the  Inns  of  Court,  but  make  no  direct  mention  of  the 
dramatist. 

Wilson,  H.  B. 

The  History  of  Merchant  Taylors'  School,  from  its  foundation 
to  the  present  time.  In  two  parts.  I.  Of  its  founders,  patrons, 
benefactors,  and  masters.  II.  Of  its  principal  scholars.  By  the 
Rev.  H.  B.  Wilson,  B.D.,  Second  Under  Master  .  .  .  London: 
1812.  .  .  . 

The  second  volume  (1814)  contains  the  best  of  Wood  and  Whitelocke, 
but  no  record  of  Shirley's  life  at  the  school.  See  Volume  11,  pp.  672-675, 
693,  7io,  74i»  779,  792-794- 

WlNSTANLEY,  WlLLIAM. 

The  Lives  of  the  most  famous  English  Poets,  or  the  honour  of 
Parnassus ;  in  a  brief  essay  of  the  works  and  writings  of  above  two 
hundred  of  them,  from  the  time  of  K.  William  the  Conqueror  to 
the  reign  of  his  present  majesty  King  James  II.  .  .  .  Written  by 
William  Winstanley,  author  of  the  English  Worthies.  .  .  .  Lon- 
don, .  .  .   1687. 

The  notice  of  Shirley,  pp.  138-139,  is  but  a  paraphrase  of  that  by  Ed- 
ward Phillips,  1675. 

Wood,  Anthony  a. 

Athens  Oxonienses.  An  Exact  History  of  all  the  Writers  and 
Bishops  who  have  had  their  Education  in  the  most  ancient  and 
famous  University  of  Oxford,  from  the  Fifteenth  Year  of  King 
Henry  the  Seventh,  Dom.  1500,  to  the  End  of  the  Year  1690. 
Representing  the  Birth,  Fortune,  Preferment,  and  Death  of  all 
those  Authors  and  Prelates,  the  great  Accidents  of  their  Lives,  and 

£456] 


BIBLIOGRAPHY:   PART  II 

the  Fate  and  Character  of  their  Writings.  To  which  are  added 
the  Fasti  or  Annals,  of  the  said  University.  The  Second  Volume, 
Compleating  the  whole  Work. — Antiquam  exquirite  Matrem. 
Virgil.  London :  Printed  for  Tho.  Bennet  at  the  Half-Moon  in 
S.  Pauls  Churchyard,  MDCXCII. 

Wood's  account  of  Shirley,  pp.  260-262,  is  the  earliest  biographical 
sketch  of  him  that  we  possess.  Subsequent  biographers  have  been  content 
to  cite  Wood  as  an  authority,  forgetful  of  the  fact  that  the  Athena  ap- 
peared in  1691,  almost  half  a  century  after  the  closing  of  the  theaters, 
and  a  full  quarter-century  after  Shirley's  death.  On  one  point,  the  age 
of  the  dramatist  at  his  death,  we  have  documentary  grounds  for  believing 
Wood  to  be  in  error.  That  he  has  made  no  other  errors  is  scarcely 
probable. 

The  first  volume  is  dated  1691. 

Wood,  Anthony  a. 

Athenae  Oxonienses.  An  Exact  History  of  all  the  Writers  and 
Bishops  who  have  had  their  education  in  the  University  of  Oxford. 
To  which  are  added  the  Fasti,  or  annals  of  the  said  University. 
By  Anthony  a  Wood,  M.A.,  of  Merton  College.  A  new  edition 
with  additions,  and  a  continuation  by  Philip  Bliss,  fellow  of  St. 
John's  College.    Vol.  III.  .  .  .  London:  .  .  .   1817. 

In  this  edition  the  account  of  Shirley  appears  in  Vol.  in,  pp.  737-744. 

Wood,  Anthony  a. 

The  Life  of  Anthony  a  Wood,  from  the  Year  1632  to  1672, 
written  by  himself,  and  published  by  Mr.  Thomas  Hearne.  Now 
continued  to  the  time  of  his  death  from  authentic  materials.  The 
whole  illustrated  with  notes  and  the  addition  of  several  curious 
original  papers  never  before  printed.  Oxford,  .  .  .  M  DCC 
LXXIL  .  .  . 

Contained  in: 

The  Lives  of  those  eminent  antiquaries  John  Leland,  Thomas 
Hearne,  and  Anthony  a  Wood ;  with  an  authentick  account  of  their 
respective  writings  and  publications,  from  Original  Papers.  In 
which  are  occasionally  inserted  memoirs  relating  to  many  eminent 
persons  and  various  parts  of  Literature.     Also  several  engravings 

C4573 


JAMES  SHIRLEY,  DRAMATIST 

of  antiquity  never  before  published.     In  two  volumes.     Vol.  II. 

Oxford:  .  .  .  MDCCLXXII. 

This  detailed  chronicle  of  the  life  of  Wood,  written  by  the  antiquarian 
himself,  contributes  nothing  to  warrant  a  belief  that  he  was  personally 
acquainted  with  James  Shirley. 

Wright,  James.    (Anon.) 

A  Dialogue  on  Plays  and  Players. 
Being  pp.  i—xxxvii  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.  Volume  the  Eleventh.  Lon- 
don :  Printed  for  R.  Dodsley  in  Pall-Mail.     M.DCC.XLIV. 

This  Dialogue  is  the  Historia  Histrionica. 

Wright,  James.     (Anon.) 

Historia  Histrionica. 
Being  pp.  337-363  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.  .  .  .  The  Second  Edition, 
.  .  .  Volume  XII.    London,  .  .  .  MDCCLXXX. 

Wright,  James.     (Anon.) 

Historia  Histrionica. 
Being  pp.  cxxxix—clxix  in  Dodsley's 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  Plays.  .  .  .  Vol.  I.  A  New  Edi- 
tion: .  .  .  London.  .  .  .  MDCCCXXV. 

Wright,  James.     (Anon.) 

Historia  Histrionica.  An  Historical  Account  of  the  English 
Stage;  showing  the  Ancient  Uses,  Improvement,  and  Perfection 
of  Dramatic  Representations,  in  this  Nation.  In  a  Dialogue  of 
Plays  and  Players. — Olim  meminisse  juvabit.  London.  Printed 
by  G.  Croom,  for  William  Haws,  at  the  Rose  in  Ludgate-Street. 
1699.    8°. 

Being  pp.  399-431  in: 

A  Select  Collection  of  Old  English  Plays.  Originally  pub- 
lished by  Robert  Dodsley  in  the  year  1744.     Fourth  Edition,  now 

£458  n 


bibliography:  PART  II 

first  chronologically  arranged,  revised,  and  enlarged  with  the  notes 
of  all  the  commentators,  and  new  notes  by  W.  Carew  Hazlitt. 
Volume  the  Fifteenth.    London:  .  .  .   1876. 

The  principal  references  to  Shirley's  plays  occur  in  the  following 
passage,  pp.  404-405  : 

"Hart  and  Clun  were  bred  up  boys  at  the  Blackfriars,  and  acted 
women's  parts.  Hart  was  Robinson's  boy  or  apprentice;  he  acted  the 
Duchess  in  the  tragedy  of  The  Cardinal,  which  was  the  first  part  that 
gave  him  reputation.  Cartwright  and  Wintershal  belonged  to  the  Private 
House  in  Salisbury  Court;  Burt  was  a  boy,  first  under  Shank  at  the 
Blackfriars,  then  under  Beeston  at  the  Cockpit;  and  Mohun  and  Shatterel 
were  in  the  same  condition  with  him  at  the  last  place.  There  Burt  used 
to  play  the  principal  women's  parts,  in  particular  Clariana,  in  Love's 
Cruelty;  and  at  the  same  time  Mohun  acted  Bellamente,  which  part  he 
retained  after  the  Restoration." 

See  also  the  reference  to  The  Wedding,  p.  405. 


C459] 


INDEX 


Account  of  the  English  Dramatic  Poets, 

An.     See  Langbaine 
Account    of    the    English    Stage,    Some. 

See  Genest 
Account  of  Shirley.     See  Dyce 
Alchemist,  The,  93 
Alexander,   Duke   of   Florence    (in    The 

Traitor),   207 
Allot,  T.,   97-98,  405 
American   Quarterly  Review,   The,   419, 

422,  429,  432 
Amidea  (in  The  Traitor),  207-210,  217, 

218-219,  238,  396 
Andreozzi,    Aurelio    (in    The    Opportu- 
nity), 264-270,  395 
Andromana:  or,   The  Merchant's   Wife, 

416,  417,  427,  434,  445. 
Anglia.     See  Fleay 
Annals    of    the    Careers    of    James    and 

Henry  Shirley.     See  Fleay 
Annals  of  the  Stage.     See  Collier 
Antony  and  Cleopatra,  278 
Apology  for  the  Believers  in  the  Shak- 

speare-Papers,  An.     See  Chalmers 
Arber,    Edward,    63,.  67,    386,   423,   442, 

449 
Arcadia,   The,  44,  70-72,  90,   102,    105, 

106,     132,     144,    239,    241,    242-245, 

247,    252,    274,    288,    389,    394,    407, 

416,  419,  434,  4S5 
Archiv   fiir    das    Studium    der    neueren 

Sprachen      und      Literaturen.        See 

Stiefel 
Ardelia  (in  The  Duke's  Mistress),  281- 

284,  395 
Arundel,   The  History  .  .  .  of  .  .  .  See 

Tierney. 
Astle's    copy    of   Wood's   Athena,    MS. 

note  in,  26,  29,  30,  401,  423,  424 
As  You  Like  It,  180,  325 
Athens  Oxonienses.     See  Wood 

Baker,  D.  E.,  423 

Baker,  J.,   146,  411 

Ball,  The,  35,  44,  45,  69,  72,   100,   101, 

121,    132,    133,    145,    165,    168,    169,    222, 

227,  230-237,  237,  241,  242,  388,  391, 
393,  406,  419,  430,  433,  443,  452 
Bancroft,  Thomas,  9,  28-29,  30,  31,  423 
Barker  (in  The  Ball),  236,  393 
Barnacle,    Young    (in    The    Gamester), 

256,  257-258,  392,  417 
Bartholomew  Fair,  229 
Bashful  Lover,  The,  180 


Beaumont,  Sir  Francis,  83,  140-141, 
180,  217,  220,  409,  435,  437,  454 

Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  The  Relation 
of  the  Heroic  Play  to  the  Romances 
of.     See  Tupper 

Beaumont  and  .  .  .  Fletcher  .  .  .  Com- 
edies and  Tragedies  Written  by: 
Shirley's  address  "To  the  Reader"  in, 
140-141 

Beeston,  Christopher,  45,  57,  121,  127, 
130,  231,  385,  459 

Beeston's   Boys,   99,    127,    128,    130,   459 

Beeston,    William,    127,    128,    130,   426 

Bell's  British  Theatre,  418 

Bewties,  The.  See  Bird  in  a  Cage,  The, 
72,  239,  245,  455 

Biographia  Dramatica.     See  Baker,  D.E. 

Biographical  Chronicle  of  the  English 
Drama,  A.     See  Fleay 

Bird  in  a  Cage,  The,  4,  72,  74,  75, 
76-79,  90,  101,  145,  239,  242,  245- 
247,  252,  274,  288,  389,  394,  403, 
415,  417,  419,  427,  430,  433,  455 

Bishop,  Sir  Ed.,  453 

Black  Friars,  Private  House  in,  52,  54, 
55.  56,  58,  60,  107,  108,  109,  118, 
124,  130,  131,  142,  143,  144,  289,  335, 
372,  410,  411,  459 

Bliss,   Philip,  22,  457 

Bombo  (in  The  Royal  Master),  300, 
303.  392 

Bossewell,  John,    12 

Bostock  (in  The  Ball),  236,  393 

Boston  Public  Library,  454 

Brains  (in  The  Witty  Fair  One),  190, 
197.  238,  393 

British  Dramatists,  The  Works  of  the. 
See  Keltie 

British  Museum,  Library  of  the,  100, 
146,  152,  406,  408,  411,  412,  413,  414, 
415,  416,  418,  426,  429,  432,  436 

British   Poets,   Specimens   of   the.      See 

Campbell 
British  Theatre,  Bell's,  418 

Brooke,  J.  M.  S.  See  St.  Mary  Wool- 
church 

Brothers,  The,  of  1626,  35,  38,  39,  40, 
41,  46-68,  69,  108,  147,  165,  169,  183, 
276,  336,  387,  388,  389,  424,  442 

Brothers,  The,  of  1652,  38,  39,  46-68, 
69,  108,  132,  142,  143,  145,  155,  165, 
169,  242,  276,  289,  292,  320,  336-342, 
343.  380,  387,  388,  389,  392,  410, 
411,   419,  425.  430,   433.   436.  445 


C4613 


INDEX 


Brydges,  S.   E.,  26,  401,  423 

B.,   T.,    152,   414,   415,   455 

Bubulcus   (in  Love  Tricks),   172,  393 

Bullen,   A.   H.,   39,   46,    62,    63,   65,   66, 

67.  424.  442 
Bussy  D'Ambois.     See  Chapman. 

Cambridge  History  of  English  Litera- 
ture.    See  Neilson 

Cambridge  University,  21,  25,  26,  27, 
28,  30,  31,  33 

Campbell,  T.,  424 

Caperwit  (in  Changes,  or  Love  in  a 
Maze),   227,   393 

Captain  Underwit,  424 

Cardinal,  The,  52,  53,  55,  60,  83,  108, 
132,  142,  143,  144,  145,  155,  174, 
289,  292,  320,  321,  344-361,  379,  386, 
390,  396,  408,  411,  419,  420,  421,  422, 
424,  428,  440-441,  443,  445,  451,  459 

Cardinal  (in  The  Cardinal),  356-360, 
396,  434 

Careers  of  James  and  Henry  Shirley, 
Annals  of  the.     See  Fleay 

Cassandra    (in    The    Young    Admiral), 

250,  395 
Castigo  del  Penseque,  El,  263,  264,  268- 

27°t  324,   383.  4SO 
Catalogue  of  Early  English  Books.    See 

Hoe,    Robert 
Catalogue  of  the  Library  of  Robert  Hoe 
of  New  York.     See  Hoe,  Robert,  Li- 
brary of. 
Catherine  Hall.     See  Katherine  Hall 
Cavendish,  VV.     See  Newcastle 
Censura  Literaria.     See  Brydges 
Cesario   (in   The  Young  Admiral),  250, 

395 

Chabot.  Admiral  of  France,  82,  83-89, 
90,  100-101,  101,  124,  132,  145,  241, 
263,  274,  279,  287,  337-338,  389,  395, 
406,  419,  420,  424,  430,  436,  442.  See 
Lehman,   and    Parrott 

Chalmers,  G.,   126,  422,  424 

Chamberlain,  Lord.  See  Pembroke  and 
Montgomery.      See   Essex 

Chambers,  E.  K.,  50,  126,  425 

Changes,  or  Love  in  a  Maze,  9,  41,  44, 
45,  51,  57,  69,  101,  127,  145,  154, 
156,  165,  169,  222,  226-227,  229,  236, 
237.  242,  388,  392,  393,  402,  419,  428, 
433.  436 

Chapman,  George,  4,  82,  84-89,  90,  100, 
»°».  337-338,  389.  406,  420 

Chapman,  George,  The  Plays  and  Poems 
of.     See   Parrott 

Chapman,  The  Tragedies  of.  See  Leh- 
man 

Charles  I,  3,  4,  36,  40,  71,  74,  79,  81, 
93.    135.   136,  253,  258,  306 

Charles  II,  3,  153,  155 


Chetwood,  W.  R.,  416,  425 
Chief  Elizabethan  Dramatists.    See  Xeil- 
son 

Chorus      Vatum     Anglicanorum.        See 

Hunter 
Cibber,   Theophilus,   7,   23,   25,    137,   425 
Civil  War,  3,  135,  136-137,  161 
Cleona  (in  The  Grateful  Servant),  191- 

193.  395 
Clutterbuck,  R.,  425 
Cockpit.     See  Phoenix 
Cockpit  Plays,  List  of,  99,  103,  128,  424, 

426,  438 
Coleridge,    S.   T.,   378 
Collection  of  Old  Plays,  A  Select.     See 

Dodsley 
Collier,    J.    P.,    82,    126,    128,    130,    426, 

427 
Columbia  University,  Library  of,  415 
Columbo   (in   The  Cardinal),   351-353 
Comedy,  Romantic.    See  Romantic  Com- 
edy 
Commendatory  Verses,  419 
Companies,      English     Dramatic.        See 

Murray 
Complement,     School     of.       See     Love 

Tricks 
Comus.     See  Milton 
Conceited  Duke,  The,  103 
Congreve,    5 
Conspiracy    and    Tragedy     of    Charles, 

Duke  of  Byron.     See   Chapman 
Constable,  F.,  44,  96,  402,  405 
Constant  Maid,  The,  104,  106-107,  119, 

124,  128,  132,  145,  152,  157,  242,  276, 

289,  292,  314-319,  320,  339,  362,  380, 

389.  391,  392,  408,  414,  419,  434 
Contention   for   Honor  and   Riches,    A, 

74,  75,  90,  101,  402,  419,  433 
Contention   of  Ajax  and    Ulysses,    The, 

148-150,  161,  412-413,  4I9,  434,  435 
Cooke,  A.,  97 
Cooke,   W.,   45,   74,   75,   81,   82,   84,   95, 

96,  97,  98,  100,  101,  102,  104,  105,  106, 

114,   124,  402,  403,  404,  406,  407,  408 
Coronation,    The,    82-83,    88,    90,    101, 

105,  106,  123,  124,  132,  145,  239,  242, 

263,  270-274,  275,  288,  325,  326,  389, 

394,  408,   419,  434 
Cosmo  (in  The  Traitor),  451 
Country    Captain,    The,    153,    424,    452. 

See  Newcastle 
Court  Secret,  The,  55,  56,  60,  108,  132, 

135.  142,  143,  144,  156,  289,  292,  320, 

362,    371-380,    381,    390,    394,    411, 

419,   436,  443 
Covcnt  Garden.     See  Nabbes 
Criticism,  Literary,  The  Library  of.    See 

Moulton 
Crooke,  Andrew,  84,  95,  96,  97,  98,  100, 

101,  102,  106,  114,  124,  404,  406,  407, 

408 


£462  3 


INDEX 


Crooke,  E.,  97,  98,  405 

Crooke,  J.,  97.   146,   149.  4°5>  4".  4^-> 

413 
Cross,  T.,   142 
Cupid  and  Death,    146,    161,   411,   413, 

419 
Cymbeline,  169,  242,  274 
Cynthia's  Revels,  173 

Davenant,    Sir   William,    130,   156,  426, 

428 
Depazzi  (in  The  Traitor),  211-212,  379, 

393 
Deputy  of  Ireland,  Lord.     See  Strafford 
Dialogue  on  Plays  and  Players,  A.     See 

Wright,  J. 
Diary     of    Samuel    Pepys,     The.       See 

Pepys 
Dibdin,  C,  363,  371,  426 
Dicke  of  Devonshire,  39,  46,  63-68,  69, 

165,  169,  424,  426,  442.     See  Bullen 
Dictionary    of  National   Biography,    32, 

426,  454,  455.     See  also  Ward 
Dodsley,    Robert,    415,    416,    417,    426- 

427.  447.   458-4S9 

Domitilla   (in   The  Royal  Master),  296- 

300,  303,  395 
Don    Lope    de    Cardona,    247,    249-250, 

450,  453-454 
Dormant  (in  The  Example),  259,  393 
Doubtful  Heir,  The  (Rosania),  49-50, 
54.  55.  6<V  99,  107,  118,  124,  132, 
142,  143,  144,  289,  292,  320,  321-330, 
342,  343.  379.  38i,  39°,  394,  410, 
419,  424,  425,  426,  431,  434,  435,  437. 

455 

Downes,  John,   156,   161,  428 

Drama,  A  Biographical  Chronicle  of  the 
English.     See  Fleay 

Dramatic      Companies,     English.        See 
Murray 

Dramatic      Literature,      English.        See 
Ward 

Dramatic  Poetry,  English,   The  History 
of.     See  Collier 

Dramatic   Poets,    English,    An    Account 
of   the.      See   Langbaine 

Dramatic  Poets,  English,  Specimens  of. 
See  Lamb 

Dramatic  Poets,  English,  The  Lives  and 

Characters  of  the.  See  Gildon 
Dramatic  romance,  5,  169,  182,  242, 
244,  246,  263,  270,  273,  274,  275,  288, 
321,  322,  325,  326,  327,  342,  372,  377, 
378,  381,  383,  39i.  393-394,  395,  453 
Dramatic  Works  and  Poems  of  James 
Shirley.  See:  American  Quarterly 
Review;  Dyce;  Gifford;  Quarterly  Re- 
view; Shirley;    Works 


Dramatists,  The  Chief  Elizabethan.    See 

Neilson 
Dring,  Thomas,  Jr.,  414 
Drury    Lane,    Private    House    in.      See 

Phoenix 
Dryden,    John,    5,    335,    383,    393,    428, 

430.  436,  437 

Dublin,  Theater  in,  93,  97,  98,  99,   105, 

no,  131,  293,  405,  425 
Duchess  of  Malft,  The.     See  Webster 
Duke,  The,  102-103,  165,  221,  223,  430, 

431.  455-     See  also  Humorous  Cour- 
tier,  The 

Duke  of  York's  Servants,  The.  See 
Servants 

Duke's  Mistress,  The,  89,  90,  98-99, 
101,  132,  145,  239,  242,  263,  276, 
280-286,     287,     288,     389,     394.     395. 

406,  419,  434,  451 

Dyce,  Rev.  Alexander,  6,  7,  9  note,  16, 
21,  22,  27,  28,  29,.  32,  47-54,  80,  84, 
85,  91,  117,  120,  151,  174,  181,  229, 
271,  280,  418-419,  422,  429,  430,  432, 
444 

Eccho,   or  the  Infortunate  Lovers,   26, 

2-j,  30,  140,  387,  401,  423 
Egglesfeild,  F.,  102,  104,  106,  124,  244, 

407.  430 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  3,  449 

Elizabeth,  Lady,  57 

Elizabethan  Drama.     See  Schelling 

Elizabethan  Dramatists,  The  Chief.  See 
Neilson 

Elizabethan  Playhouse,  The.  See  Law- 
rence,  W.  J. 

Elizabethans,  3,  383 

Englische  Studien.     See  Glode,  O. 

English  Comedies,  Representative.  See 
Gayley 

English  Drama,  A  Biographical  Chron- 
icle of  the.     See  Fleay 

English  Dramatic  Companies.  See  Mur- 
ray 

English  Dramatic  Literature.  See 
Ward 

English  Dramatic  Poetry,  The  History 
of.     See  Collier 

English  Dramatic  Poets,  An  Account  of 
the.     See  Langbaine 

English  Dramatic  Poets,  Specimens  of. 
See  Lamb 

English  Dramatic  Poets,  The  Lives  and 
Characters  of  the.     See  Gildon 

English  Garner,  An.  See  Arber,  E., 
and   Peeke,    R. 

English  Poets,  The  Lives  of  the  most 
famous.     See  Winstanley 

English  Stage,  Some  Account  of  the. 
See  Genest 

English   Tragicomedy.     See  Ristine 


[463] 


INDEX 


Epica-ne,  259 

Epilogue  to  The  Imposture,  335 

Essay    on    the   Learning    of   Shakspere, 

An.     See  Farmer 
Essex,   Earl   of,   Lord   Chamberlain,   49, 

126,  425 
Evadne;  or,  The  Statue,  418 
Every  Man  in  his  Humor,  168,  222 
Every  Man  out  of  liis  Humor,  236 
Example,   The,  81,  88,   90,   95-96,   101, 

132,     145.    155.    239,    241,    253,    254, 

258-262,  275,  287,  288,  389,  392,  393, 

404,  419,  428,  434.  45i 

Faithful  Servant,  The.  See  Grateful 
Servant,  The 

Farce,  174,  252,  292,  362,  371,  379,  381 

Farmer,  Dr.  Richard,  28,  29,  30,  33, 
342,  423,  429-430 

Fleay,  F.  G.,  6,  7,  11,  30,  33,  38,  40, 
41,  43,  44,  46-68,  70,  71-72,  75,  84, 
90,  95.  97.  99,  100,  102,  103,  104,  109, 
112,  114,  115,  117,  123,  124,  126,  128, 
165.  17",  306,  336,  384,  387,  424,  430- 
431,   442,  454,  455 

Fletcher,  John,  4,  5,  73,  83,  93,  102, 
106,  123,  124,  134,  140-141,  145,  168, 
169,  170,  180,  181,  182,  218,  220,  221, 
222,  229,  238,  242,  244,  245,  246,  252, 
270,  273,  274,  275,  288,  292,  318,  321, 
322,  326,  327,  342,  378,  379,  380,  381, 
383.  387.  388,  391,  392,  393,  394,  395, 
397,  408,  409,  426,  435,  436,  437,  443, 
449,  454 

Fletcher,  Beaumont  and;  The  Relation 
of  the  Heroic  Play  to  the  Romances 
of.     See  Tupper 

Ford  and  Shirley.     See  Neilson 

Ford,  John,  42,  77 

Forsythe,  R.  S.,  62,  383,  431 

Fortnightly  Review,  The.  See  Swin- 
burne 

Foscari  (in  The  Grateful  Servant),  191- 
193.  395 

Frapolo   (in   The  Sisters),  365-371,  395 

French  Dancing   Master,    145,   443 

French  Dancing  Mistress,   The,  443 

Freshwater,  Jack  (in  The  Ball),  236, 
393 

Gamester,  The,  4,  72,  73,  74,  90,  95- 
96,  101,  120,  132,  145,  168,  239,  241, 
253,  254-258,  275,  287,  387,  389,  39i, 
392,  404,  417,  419,  427,  428,  431,  434, 
435.  See  The  Wife's  Relief,  and  The 
Gamesters 

Gamesters,  The,  415,  417,  418.  See 
The  Gamester,  and  The  Wife's  Relief 

Garner,  An  English.  See  Arber,  K., 
and  Peeke,   R, 

Garrick,   David,  415,  417,  418 


Gartner,  O.,  441,  447 

Gayley,  C.   M.,  421,  455 

Gaywood,  R.,  11,  151,  161,  409 

General,  The,  Prologue  to,  94 

Genest,  Rev.  John,  429,  431,  449 

Gentleman  of  Venice,  The,  103,  128, 
129,  130,  132,  144-145,  146,  147,  161, 
289,  292,  305-307,  313,  314,  319,  320, 
381,  390,  394.  411,  419,  434,  438 

Gentleman's  Journal,  The,  415,  431-432 

Gentleman's  Magazine,  The.  See  Smith, 
G.  Barnett 

Gifford,  William,  9  note,  32,  48,  300, 
418-419,   422,   427,   429,   432,   444 

Gilchrist,   Octavius,  91 

Gildon,  Charles,  437 

Globe  Theater,  The,   124,   131 

Glode,  O.,  432,  441 

"Glories  of  our  blood  and  state,  The," 
149-150 

Gosse,    Edmund,    6,    72,    137,    191,    420, 

432-433 
Grateful  Servant,    The,  41,   43,   69,  96, 
101,  145,  156,  165,  168,  169,  183,  184, 
191-197,  198,  221,  222,  227,  237,  241, 
247,  3°5,  388,  392,  394,  395,  401,  405, 
413,  419,  424,  428,  433,  434,  436,  452 
Gray's  Inn,  32,  34,   35,   131,  403 
Grove,  J.,  41,  42,  43,  75,  401,  402 

Hallen,  A.  W.  C.  See  St.  Mary  Wool- 
church 

Hamlet,  170,  311 

Hatton  Garden,  157,  414 

Hazlitt,  W.  C,  427,  459 

Hearne,   Thomas,  457 

Henrietta  Maria,  4,  73  ,74,  76,  79,  81 

Henry  V.,   173 

Herbert,  Sir  Henry,  4,  36,  38,  39-40, 
44,  48,  62,  65,  71,  72,  73,  80-81,  83, 
89,  92,  120,  121,  127,  131,  147,  154, 
161,  231-232,  258,  384,  386,  426,  429, 
433,  438,  452.     See  Malone 

Her  Majesty's  Servants.     See  Servants 

Hernando  (in  The  Cardinal),  353-356 

Heroic  plays,  5,  379,  453 

Heroic  Play,  The  Relation  of  the,  to 
the  Romances  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher.     See  Tupper 

Hertford,  The  History  .  .  .  of  the 
County  of.     See  Clutterbuck 

Hertfordshire,  The  Victoria  History  of 
the   County    of.      See   Page 

Heywood,   46,   71,    124,   428,   437 

His   Majesty's   Servants.      See   Servants 

Historia  Histrionica.      See  Wright,  J. 

History  of  English  Dramatic  Literature, 
A.     See  Ward 

History  of  the  Stage.      See   Malone 

History  of  the  Stage,  An  Enlarged. 
See  Malone 


[464] 


INDEX 


Histriomastix.     See  Prynne 

Hoe,  Robert.  Catalogue  of  Early  Eng- 
lish Books,  407,  433 

Hoe,  Robert,  Library  of,  41,  42,  43.  44. 
59,  75,  81,  82,  83,  95,  96,  97,  98,  99, 
101,  105,  106,  107,  142,  149,  150,  152, 
293,  387,  401,  402,  403,  404,  405,  406, 
407,  408,  409,  410,  411,  412,  414,  433- 
435 

Honoria  and  Mammon,  148-149,  161, 
412,  419,   434,   435 

Hornet    (in    The   Constant   Maid),    319, 

392 

Howard,  J.  J.  See  Visitation  of  Lon- 
don 

Humorous  Courtier,  The,  43-44,  69, 
102-103,  105,  132,  145,  165,  169,  221, 
222-223,  237,  388,  393,  406-407, 
419,  430,  431,  434,  455 

Humors,  Comedy  of,  168,  170,  174,  177, 
179,  182,  184,  221,  227,  236,  242,  254, 
258,  262,  281,  287,  379,  39i,  392-393 

Hunter,  Joseph,  11,  435 

Hutton,  W.  H.,  435 

Hyde  Park,  44,  69,  72,  95,  101,  114, 
132,  145,  157,  165,  168,  169,  222,  226, 
227-230,  236,  237,  242,  387,  388,  391, 
404,   419,  420,  433,   434,  443 

Illinois,  University  of:  its  presentation 
of  The  Opportunity,  439-440 

Imposture,  The,  50,  55,  60,  99,  107, 
117,  132,  142,  143.  144,  145,  289,  292, 
320,  330-335,  336,  342,  343,  379,  381, 
390,  394,  395,  411,  419,  425,  426 

Inns  of  Court,  5,  79-80,  81,  145,  4°3. 
456 

Ireland,  Lord  Deputy  of.     See  Strafford 

Irish  Gent,  The,  Prologue  to,  93 

Irish  theater.     See  Chetwood 

Ives,  Simon,  79,  80 

Jacomo  (in  The  Grateful  Servant),  196- 

197,  238,  392 
James  I,  3,  36 

James,  Upon  the  Death  of  King,  36,  37 
Johnson,  Charles,  415,  417,  418 
Jones,   Inigo,   5,   79,   81 
Jonson,    Ben,    4,    5,    93,    134.    141,    168, 

170,    173,    l8l,    182,    l86,    190,   221,   222, 

227,  229,  236,  238,  241,  242,  258,  259, 
262,  287,  292,  380,  381,  387,  388,  391, 

392,  397,  435,  437 
Juliana    (in    The    Imposture),    33I-332, 

395 

Katherine  Hall,  Cambridge,  27,  28,  29, 

31,   33.   34 
Keltie,  John  S.,  419 


Kildare,    George,    Earl   of,   91,    no-Ill, 

113,    122 
King   (in   The  Royal  Master),   293-299, 

395 

Kingsley,  Charles,  435 

King's  men.  See  Servants,  His  Maj- 
esty's 

King's  Men,  Plays  of,  in  1641.  See 
Chambers 

Knight,   J.,   431 

Krapp,  G.  P.,  314.  436 

Lacrym^  Cantabrigienses,  MS.  verses 
in,   27,  29 

Lady  of  Pleasure,  The,  82,  90,  94-95, 
101,  114,  120,  132,  133,  145,'  232,  236, 
239,  241,  263,  276-280,  287,  387,  389, 
392,  403,  419,  420,  424,  434,  436,  440, 

445 
Lamb,  Charles,  436 
Langbaine,  Gerard,  43°~437 
Latin   comedy,    173 
Laud,  William,  21,  22,  23 
Lawes,  William,  5,  79,  80 
Lawrence,  W.  J.,  437 
Leach,  A.  F.     See  Page,  W. 
Leake,  W.,  96,  405,  4*3,  4'4 
Learning  of  Shakespeare,  An  Essay  on 

the.     See  Farmer 
Le  Frisk  (in  The  Ball),  236,  393 
Legh,  Gerard,  12 
Lehman,  Ezra,  84,  85-86,  101,  406,  420, 

437 

Leland,  John,  457 

Leonora,  Princess  (in  The  Grateful  Ser- 
vant),  191-193,   395 

Library  of  Literary  Criticism,  The.  See 
Moulton 

Little  Lincoln's-Inn  Fields,  Theater  in, 

4J4 
Lives    and    Characters    of    the    English 

Dramatick  Poets,  The.     See  Gildon 
Lives  of  the  most  famous  English  Poets, 

The.     See  Winstanley. 
Lives  of  the  Poets.     See  Cibber 
Lodam    (in    The    Wedding),    179,    180, 

392 
Long,  Mrs.,  428 
Look   to    the  Lady,    66,    104,    124,    313, 

430,  455 
Lorenzo  (in  The  Traitor),  202-204,  238, 

379,  396 
Love  in  a  Maze.     See  Changes 
Love's    Cruelty,    43-44,    69,    101,    102, 
105-106,     123,     124,     132,     145,     154, 
157,  165,  169,  221,  224-226,  237,  388, 
392,   407,  419,   434,  443,   459 
Love  Tricks,  or  The  School  of  Comple- 
ment, 35,  36,   38,  40,  44,   57,  69,  96, 
101,  145,  156,  157,  158,  165,  169,  170- 
174,  177,  180,  182,  183,  221,  222,  237, 


l>65] 


INDEX 


241,  314,  388,  393,  394,  402,  404-405, 

414,  419,  428,  430,  433,  434,  436,  443, 
454 

Love  will  finde  out  the  Way,  152,  414, 

415,  427,  434.  See  Constant  Maid, 
The 

Lowndes,  R.,  148,  412,  413 
Lupton,  T.,  151,  447 

Macbeth,  311 

Mac  Flecknoe.     See  Dryden 

Maid's  Revenge,  The,  38,  40,  69,  83, 
100-101,  101,  105,  109,  115,  116,  118, 
120,  132,  145,  154,  165,  169,  170,  174- 

176,  180,  182,  183,  197,  221,  237,  241, 
386,  388,  395,  406,  418,  419,  422,  434, 
436,   454 

Maid's  Tragedy,  The,  217-218 

Malone,  Edmond,  38,  39-40,  41,  43,  44, 
47,  49.  51.  53,  72.  73,  74,  80-81,  82, 
83,  92,  102,  103,  107,  108,  121,  126, 
127,  128,  131,  147,  154,  258,  386,  429, 
438,  443,  452 

Manductio,  148,  413 

Manners,  Comedy  of,  5,   168,   170,   174, 

177,  182,  184,  190,  221,  222,  224,  226, 
230,  238,  241,  252,  254,  258,  263,  275, 
276,  280,  287,  292,  314,  318,  336,  339, 
342,  379,  380,  381,  383,  387,  391-392 

Marlowe,   218 

Marpisa  (in  The  Politician),  309-312, 
396 

Marshall,  W.,    139,    161,   409,  410 

Martyred  Soldier,  The.  See  Shirley, 
Henry 

Masque,  172,  174,  182,  194,  227,  244, 
394,  403 

Massinger,  Philip,  43,  131,  180,  304 

Memorials  of  English  Affairs.  See 
Whitelocke 

Merchant  of  Venice,  The,  180 

Merchant  Taylors'  School,  13,  16,  17, 
20,  21,  24,  25,  33,  91,  385,  386,  429, 
439 

Merchant  Taylors'  School,  A  Register 
of  the  Scholars  admitted  to.  See 
Robinson 

Merchant  Taylors'  School,  MS.  Regis- 
ter of,  13,  16,  17,  20,  21,  386,  429, 
439 

Merchant  Taylors'  School,  The  History 
of.     See  Wilson 

Mermaid  Series,  The,  420,  432 

Middleton,  Thomas,  92,   182,  339,  392 

Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  325 

Mildmay,  Sir  Humphrey,  82,  426 

Milton,  John,  4,  5,  397 

Modern  Language  Association,  Publica- 
tions of  the.     See  Tupper 

Montague,   Walter,   76 


Montalto   (in   The  Royal  Master),   293- 

296,  395 
Moseley,     Humphrey,     47,     59-61,     138, 

139,  141,   143,   144,  147,  387,  408,  409, 

410,   411,   412 
Moulton,  C.  W.,  439 
Much  Ado  about  Nothing,  169,  1S0,  182 
Murray,  J.  T.,  57,  128,  439 

Nabbes,  Thomas,  71 

Nachahmung    spanischer    Komodien    in 

England,  Die.      See   Stiefel 
Narcissus,  or  The  Self  Lover,  138,  140, 

409.     See  Eccho 
Nation,  The,  439-440 
Neilson,  W.  A.,  6,  280,  420,  421,  440- 

441,  447 
Newcastle,  William  Cavendish,  Duke  of, 

3,  136,  137,  153,  161,  385,  424,  452 
New  Theater  in  Drury  Lane,  156 
Nicholas.      See  Treadle,   Sir  Nicholas 
Night    Walker,    The,    72-73,    102,    124, 

132,  241,  408 
Nissen,  P.,  6,  7,  23,   36,  37,  38,   58-59, 

95,    97,    98,    102,    109,    112,    114,    115, 

119,  123-124,  126,  128,  137,  383,  387, 

432,  441 
Noble    and    Gentle    Men    of    England. 

See  Shirley,   E.   P. 
North,  E.  D.,  141,  409 
Notes  and  Queries,  11,  14,  448 
No  Wit,  no  Help  like  a  Woman's,  92,  93 
Nursery,  The,  157,  414 

Oaths,  73 

Octavio    (in    The   Royal    Master),    298, 

301-302,  395 
O delta,  To,   137 
Ogilby,    John,    93,    120,    131,    153,    i6r, 

425 
Oldham,   John,   436,   441 
Old  Plays,  A  Collection  of.     See  Bullen 
Old  Plays,  A  Select  Collection  of.     See 

Dodsley 
Oldrat  (in  The  Example),  259,  393 
Old  Wives'  Tale.     See  Peele 
Opportunity,  The,  81,  88,  90,  101,  105, 

106,  118,  132,  145,  154,  155,  239,  242, 

263-270,  275,  288,  383,  389,  394,  395, 

407,  419,  428,  434,  439-440,  450 
Orseolo    (in    The   Humorous    Courtier), 

223,  393 
Othello,  201 
Otway,  Thomas,   5,  383 
Owen,  Captain   Richard,  118 
Oxford   University,   8,   33 

Pace,  William,  32,  442 
Parrott,  J.  M.,  86-87,  420,  442 
Pastoral,    170,    171-172,    174,    182,    244, 
388,  394,  407 


[466] 


INDEX 


Paulina   (in   The  Sisters),   363-365,   385 
Peeke,  Richard,  63,  64,  66,  423,  442 
Peele,  George,   173 

Pembroke  and  Montgomery,  Philip,  Earl 
of;   Lord   Chamberlain,    125-126,    129, 
424,  426,  438 
Pepys,  Samuel,   155,   156,   157,  161,  229, 

442 
Phenik,   G.,    II,    151,    161,   409 
Philaster,  169,   180,  242,  274 
Phillips,   Edward,   5,   397,  423,  436,  443 
Philoclea,  416 

Phoenix,  The  (The  Cockpit;  the  Private 
House  in  Drury  Lane),  41,  42,  43, 
44.  57,  71.  75.  84,  95,  96,  99,  100, 
101,  105,  106,  123,  127,  128,  130,  152, 
385,  401,  402,  403,  404,  405,  406,  407, 
408,  413,  414,  426,  459 
Pike.      See  Peeke 

Piperollo  (in  The  Sisters),  365-371,  392 
Plague  in  London,  92-93,  in,  120,  127, 

J3i 
Playford,  J.,  413 

Playhouse,   The  Elizabethan.     See  Law- 
rence, W.  J. 
Plays  and  Puritans.     See  Kingsley 
Plays,  A  Select  Collection  of  Old.     See 

Dodsley 
Plays  of  the  King's  Men  in  1641.     See 

Chambers 
Plot,    Sir    Solitary    (in    The   Example), 

258-259,  393 
Plan  of  this  monograph,   6,  7,  382 
Poems,    137,    138-140,    145,    153,    161, 

408,   419,   434 
Poets,  English,   The  Lives  of  the  most 

famous.     See  Winstanley 
Politician,    The,    47-54,    66,    104,    128, 
129,  130,  132,  144,  146,  147,  161,  289, 
292,  305,  307-312,  313,  314,  319,  320, 
381,  39°,  396,  412,  419,  434,  436 
Politique  Father,   The,  46,  47-62,    108, 
132,  142,  147,  169,  242,  289,  292,  320, 
321,  336-342,  362,  379,  387,  389,  392. 
See  The  Brothers  of  1652. 
Polonius,  170 
Private    House    in    Drury    Lane.       See 

Phoenix 
Private  House  in  Salisbury  Court.     See 

Salisbury  Court 
Protectorate,  3 

Prynne,  William,  4,  72,  76-79,  245,  443 
Publication,  Right  of,   125-126 
Publications   of    the    Modern   Language 

Association.      See  Tupper 
Pumicestone    (in    The    Example),    258, 
393 


Quarrel   with   the   Queen's  men,    Shir- 
ley's alleged,   109,   122-131,    133,  385 


Quarterly  Review,  The,  419,  429,  432, 
444 

Queen's  men.  See  Servants,  Her  Maj- 
esty's 

Rawbone   (in  The   Wedding),   179,   180, 

392 
Red  Bull  actors,  154 
Register  Booke,   The,  Belonging  to   the 
Parish    Church    of    S.    Giles    without 
Cripplegate.      See    St.    Giles,    Cripple- 
gate 
Register   of   Merchant  Taylors'    School, 
MS.      See   Merchant  Taylors'    School 

Register    of    the    Scholars    admitted    to 
Merchant    Taylors'    School,    A.      See 
Robinson 
[Register    of]    St.    Giles    in    ye    Fields. 

1638-68.     See  St.  Giles  in  the  Fields 
Register  of  St.  Mary  Woolchurch.     See 

St.   Mary  Woolchurch 
Registers    of  ...  S.    Mary    Woolnoth 
and  S.  Mary  Woolchurch  Haw,  Tran- 
script  of   the.      See   St.    Mary   Wool- 
church 

Relation  of  the  Heroic  Play  to  the  Ro- 
mances of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
The.      See  Tupper 

Relations  of  Shirley's  Plays  to  the  Eliza- 
bethan Drama,   The.     See  Forsythe 

Representative  English  Comedies.  See 
Gayley 

Restoration,  The,  3,  153-154.  222,  277, 
280,  307,  379,  383 

Revels,  Company  of  his  Majesty's,  41, 
44.  5i.  57.  127.   130.  402 

Revels,  Master  of.  See  Herbert,  Sir 
Henry 

Revenge  of  Bussy  D'Ambois,  The.  See 
Chapman 

Ristine,   F.   H.,  445 

Rivers,    Mr.,   414-415,   432,   445 

Robinson,    C.   J.,   445 

Robinson,  Humphrey,  143,  144,  409, 
410,    411 

Romances  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher, 
The  Relation  of  the  Heroic  Play  to 
the.     See  Tupper 

Romanische  Forschungen.     See  Stiefel 

Romantic  Comedy,  5,  169,  182,  184, 
191,  242,  247,  254,  262,  263,  275,  288, 
292,  303.  33°,  361,  362,  371,  379,  381, 
388,  391,  393.  394-395 

Romantic  Tragedy,  5,  108,  169,  170, 
182,  184,  198,  201,  220,  222,  254,  274, 
280,  287,  292,  307,  312,  344,  379,  381, 
383,  388,  391,  393,  395-396 

Rome,  Church  of,  31,  32,  33,  66-67,  68 

Romeo  and  Juliet,  169 

Rosania    {The  Doubtful   Heir),    50,    54, 


60,  118,  124,  132,  142,  289 


:467  3 


INDEX 


Rosaura,    Duchess    (in    The    Cardinal), 

347-351,  396,  459  T 

Roscitcs  Anglicanus.     See  Downes   J. 
Rosinda   (in  The  Young  Admiral),  250, 

320,  381,  390,  392,  394,  39S,  405,  418, 
419,  421,  424,  434,  447,  451,  455 
Rudiments  of  Grammar,  The,  148,  41- 


St  \lbans  Grammar  School,  21,  31, 
*£  3^tI3[U2STtr  Tragedy  of, 
St  GW  Sfc  Henry.     See  F«*ato« 

St  Geow!  Sir  Richard.     See  FiriMtfen 

0/  London  , 

St.    Giles   in   the   Fields,    13,    160,    162, 

-586,  429,  446  , 

St.    Giles   without    Cripplegate,    13,    3&, 

38.   68,   385.   445-446 
Stf  John's  College,  Oxford,   21,   22    25, 

-9    31,  33-     History  of,  see  Hutton 
St.    Mary    Woolchurch,    16,    17,    20,    33, 

SfcF-SS  #  /-/and,  X04.  106-107, 
1,9,  124.  128,  132,  MS,  152,  289,  313- 
314,  319,  320,  381,  390,  394,  408,  416, 

StA7a&s3Puna\ory,  The  Legend  of. 

See  Krapp  . 

Salisbury   Court,  Private  House  in,   41, 

44,  47,  48,  51.  52,  54,  57,  99,  i°3,  "4. 

127,  128,  129,   130,   146,  147,  291,  292, 

185,  402,  411,  412,  459 
Satyr    A.      The   Person    of   Spencer   M 

fcroW'i*"'-     See  Oldham 
Schelling,    F.    E.,    6,    46,    76,    176,    186, 

221,  224,  244-245,  255,  306,  312,  37i, 

424,    446-447  Av, 

Schipper,   J.,    6,    87-88,    303,    3U,    421, 

447 

School  for  Scandal,  The.     See  Sheridan 
School  of  Complement.  The.     See  Love 

Scfa'rrha     (in     Tfte     Traitor),     204-207, 
238,   396 

Segar,  Sir  William,  15 

SWw*  Collection  of  Old  Plays,  A.  See 
I  (odsley 

Scrger,  R.,  97,  405  , 

Servants,  Her  Majesty's,  of  the  Phoe- 
nix. 41.  43.  43,  44.  45,  Si.  57,  7',  73. 
74,  75,  82,  84,  95,  96.  100,  101,  105. 
'06,  1.6,  12.,  122-131,  «52,  23..  385, 
401,  402.  403.  404,  405,  406,  407,  40H, 
41  ?,  414,   4>6,  439  .    _   ,.  , 

Servants,  Her    Majesty's,   of   Salisbury 


See    Mon- 


10,   12 


Court,  47,  48,  49,  5L  52,  54,  62,  99, 
103,  104,  107,  109,  "8,  122-131,  133, 
146,  147,  291,  292,  385,  4ii,  412,  439 
Servants,  His  Majesty  s,  46,  49,  SL  5-, 
53,  54,  56,  58,  60,  61,  99,  107.  108, 
109,  118,  123,  124,   125,  126,   130,  131, 

S^aftffibK  of  York's,  4i4      . 
Shakespeare,  An  Essay  on  the  Learning 

of.     See  Farmer 
Shakspeare,     William,    The    Plays    and 

Poems  of.     See  Malone 
Shakspere,   4,   5,   37,   *34,   169,   170,   173, 
,80,  181,  182,  191,  201.  216,  218,  219, 
221,  242,  274,  278,  286.  2S8,  292,  303, 
311,  312,  318,  325,  327,  339,  378,  379, 
381,  387,  39L  392,  397,  435 
Sharlie.     See  Shirley 
Shepherds'    Paradise,    I  he. 

tague 
Sheridan,  R.  B.,  277 
Sherley.      See   Shirley 
Shiel,  Richard  L.,  4 18,  447 
Shiels,  Robert.     See  Cibber 
Shirlev     Sir   Charles,   Bart,   9.   — ,   - 
Shirley,   Christopher,   son  of  the   dram- 

atist,  159 
Shirley,  Lady  Dorothy,  9 
Shirley,   E.   P.,  9  note,    10,    11,   12,    13, 

I4,     447""448 

Shirley    Ford  and.     See  Neilson 
Shirley,  Frances,  wife  of  the  dramatist, 

160,   162 
Shirley,  Sir  George,  Bart.,  9 
Shirley  \_als.  Sachell],  George,  grandson 

of  the  dramatist,   159 
Shirley,    Henry,    dramatist,    II,    12,    ij, 

430,  435,  448,  453 
Shirley,  Sir  Henry,  Bart,  9.  10 
Iron    James,  The  Dramatist.    Par- 
SS  8,  34.  385;  nrst  hyP°thes.s      - 
I0;    second    hypothesis     11 -1 4,    Uurd 
hypothesis,    14-iS;    Probable   solution, 
!S-20.      Arms,   8,    9,    ><>,    n,    12,    IS, 
isi    448,  454.     Spelling  of  name,  13. 
a5fcjT6.1t   34-     Baptismal  record 
17    19,  33-    Schooling,  20-21,  34-     Uni- 
versity "reer,   21-31.     Mim.tr  y    3«- 
32.  33-    Religion.  31-32,  33,  66-67,  68. 
Teaching.    31-32.    33,    34.    IS*     138. 
,6,        Removal    from    St.    Albans    to 
London,  35-38.  69.  131.     Lossa    P- 
ferment.  109,   119-"*;.  »33-     Rcm°7 
from  London  to  Dublin,  91  -94.    «20  I 
122    131      In  Ireland.  51-52.  89.  91- 
94.'  Visit  to  London,  in  1636/7,  100 
,10-m.  ti2,  H4-»5,  K32;  m  1638/0 
,,c    ,1-      il'        Removal     tror 
109,     115-H/.     !3--  ,  I 

Dublin  to  London,  107,  109,  n*.  "71 
,,„,  ,,,.  As  soldier,  ,36-137.  Fa.J 
ih      37,    68,    136.    137.    158-160. 


C468] 


INDEX 


vate  life,  385-386.  Will,  37,  68,  138, 
158-160,  161,  386,  448.  Fire  of  Lon- 
don, 161.  Death,  162.  Burial,  162. 
Portraits,  8,  10,  n,  12,  23,  139,  150- 
151,  161,  409,  410,  447.  Revivals  of 
his  plays,  154-158,  161.  Catalogues 
of  his  published  works,  101,  144- 
145,  386,  408,  411.  His  publishers 
and  booksellers,  see  Allot,  Baker, 
Constable,  Cooke,  Crooke,  Eggles- 
feild,  Grove,  Leake,  Lowndes,  Mose- 
ley,  Playford,  Robinson,  Serger, 
Speed,  Stephenson,  Whitaker,  Wil- 
liams. Chronology,  6,  165,  239,  289, 
291,  384-387,  396.  Predramatic  pe- 
riod, 3-34.  First  dramatic  period,  8, 
35-69,  165-238,  388,  390.  Second 
dramatic  period,  8,  70-90,  239-288, 
388-389,  390.  Third  dramatic  period, 
8,  9I-I35.  289-381,  389-390.  Post- 
dramatic  period,  8,  136-162.  Realis- 
tic plays,  168,  169,  170,  177,  181,  191, 
193,  221,  224,  230,  231,  238,  241,  242, 
253,  256,  262,  275,  287,  305,  307,  319. 
321,  342,  343,  362,  380,  381,  387,  388, 
389,  390,  391-393,  397-  Romantic 
plays,  5,  108,  168-169,  170,  174,  191, 
221,  226,  238,  241,  242,  245,  246,  247, 
252,  254,  256,  262,  263,  275,  280,  287, 
288,  292,  293,  304,  305,  318,  319,  321, 
325,  330,  342,  362,  365,  379,  380,  381, 
387,  388,  389,  39°,  39i,  393-396,  397- 
Dedications,  115-116,  119,  125.  Pro- 
logues, 93,  140,  409.  Plots,  170-172, 
174-176,  177-180,  181,  184-188,  191- 
195,  198-202,  222-223,  224-225,  226- 
227,  227-228,  233-235,  237,  243-244, 
245-246,  247-250,  254-257,  259-260, 
263-267,  270-272,  277-278,  281-286, 
287-288,  293-299,  305-307,  307-309, 
313,  314-319,  321-324,  325-326,  330- 
335,  336-338,  344-345,  363-365,  372- 
378,  393-394,  395-396.  Scenes,  172- 
173,  195,  273-274,  286,  287-288,  307, 
309-311,    346-347.      Characterization, 

172,     176,     188-I9O,     195-197,     202-2T2, 

217-219,  223,  226,  227,  229,  230-233, 
236,  238,  250,  257-258,  258-259,  267- 
268,  269-270,  272-273,  278-280,  287- 
288,  307,  326-327,  338-339,  347-36i, 
365-371,  378-379,  392-393,  395-396. 
Dialogue,  300-302.  Verse,  212-216, 
250-252,  327-330,  339-342,  343,  361. 
Sources,  173,  180,  229,  236-237,  263, 
268-270,  324-325,  383.  Characteristic 
qualities,  6,  391-396.  Development 
as  a  dramatist,  6,  387-391,  397.  Spe- 
cific references  to  Works,  17,  21,  22, 
26,  27,  28,  29,  30,  32,  36,  40,  42,  43, 
47,  48,  53,  54,  56,  58,  66,  70,  77,.  79, 
80,  84,  91,  92,  94,   108,  no,  in,   116, 


117,  118,  119,  120,  122,  135,  137,  140, 
146,  147,  151,  153,  174,  181,  187,  188, 
189,  190,  193,  196,  197,  204,  205,  206, 
210,  214,  216,  222,  224,  228,  229,  232, 
236,  252,  258,  259,  271,  273,  274,  278, 
279,  280,  281,  293,  299,  300,  302,  306, 
307,  3ii,  312,  314,  317,  330,  334,  335, 
336,  341,  342,  346,  350,  353,  356,  360, 
361,  365,  367,  368,  371,  418-419,  422, 
429,  430,  432,  434,  444-445 
Shirley,  James:  Ein  Beitrag  sur  eng- 
lischen  Litteraturgeschichte.  See  Xis- 
sen 
Shirley,    James,    sein    Leben    und    seine 

Werke.     See  Schipper 
Shirley,  James.     See  Swinburne 
Shirley,  James,  in  DNB.     See  Ward 
Shirley,  James:  The  Royal  Master.    See 

Ward 
Shirley,  James,  father  of  the  dramatist, 

17,  19,  30,  33,  446 

Shirley,  James,  son  of  the  dramatist,  159 
Shirley,    James,    of    London,    goldsmith, 

M,   15,  33,  38,  454 
Shirley,  John,   I366(?)-I456,  447 
Shirley  [John'],  sein  Leben  und  Werken. 

See  Gartner,   O. 
Shirley,  John,  son  of  Ralph,   12 
Shirley,  John,  of  London,  goldsmith,  14, 

33,    454 
Shirley,     Lawrinda,     daughter     of     the 

dramatist,   159 
Shirley,    Mary,    daughter    of   the    dram- 
atist,  159 
Shirley,   Mathias,   son   of  the   dramatist. 

37,  68,   159,  386,  454 
Shirley,   Ralph,   12 
Shirley,    Ralph,    of   Wistonson,    14 
Shirley,   Robert,   of  Wistonson,    14 
Shirley,   Sir   Robert,    Bart.,   9,    12 
Shirley  [als.  Sachell],  Standerdine,  son- 
in-law  of  the  dramatist,  159 
Shirley,  Thomas,  eldest  son  of  William, 

18,  19 

Shirley,  Sir  Thomas,  13 

Shirley,    William,    grandfather    of    the 

dramatist,   18 
Shirleys  of   Sussex,   8,    10,    n-14,   33 
Shirleys  of  Warwickshire,  8-10,  33,  151, 

447-448 
Sidney,   Sir  Philip,  243 
Simple,    Sir    Gervase    (in    Changes,    or 

Love  in  a  Mace),  227,  393 
Sisters,  The.   55,   60,   108,   132,   133-135, 

142,  143,  145,  289,  293,  320,  362-372, 

379,  390,  392,   394,  395,  410,  419 
Six  New  Playes,  46,  55,  56,  57,  58,  60, 

61,  142-145,   161,  387,  409,  410,  434, 

435,   455 
S.,  J.,  416,  417,  445 


[469] 


INDEX 


Smith,   G.   Barnett,   432,  448-449 
Some    Account    of    the    English    Stage. 

See  Genest 
Somerset   House,   Prerogative   Court  of 

Canterbury,  448 
Spanish  Armada,   64 
Spanish  plot,  56,  58,  61 
Specimens   of  English   Dramatic   Poets. 

See  Lamb 
Speed,   S.,    152,  414 
Stage,    A    Complete    History    of.      See 

Dibdin 
Stage,  A  General  History  of.     See  Chet- 

wood 
Stage,    An    Enlarged    History    of    the. 

See  Malone 
Stage,   Annals   of.      See    Collier 
Stage,  History  of  the.     See  Malone 
Stage,    Some   Account    of    the   English. 

See  Genest 
Stanley,   Thomas,    58-59,    61,    137,    138, 

161,   387 
Star  Chamber,  Court  of  the,  76 
Startup    (in    The   Constant  Maid),   319, 

392 
Stationers,  A  Transcript  of  the  Register 

of  the  Company  of,  423,  449 
Stationers'  Company,  425,  438,  449 
Stationers'   Register,  27,  30,  41,  43,  44, 

63,  66,  74,  75,  8i,  82,  84,  95.  97,  98, 

99,  100,  101,   102,  104,   105,   no,  114, 

115,  118,  119,  131,  140,  289,  291,  293, 
313.  319.  384,  386,  389,  401,  423,  430, 

431.  449 

Stemmata  Shirleiana.  See  Shirley, 
E.  P. 

Stephenson,  John,   142,  410 

Stiefel,  A.  L.,  247,  263,  268-270,  383, 
449-450,  454,  455 

Strafford,  Earl  of,  Lord  Deputy  of  Ire- 
land, 94,  97,  98,  100,  109,  no,  112, 
113,  114,  119,  122,  132,  135,  293,  405 

Summaries. 

Life  of  Shirley:  Predramatic  Period, 
33-34;  First  Dramatic  Period,  68-69; 
Second  Dramatic  Period,  90;  Third 
Dramatic  Period,  131-133;  Postdra- 
matic  Period,  161.  Works  of  Shirley: 
First  Dramatic  Period,  237-238;  Sec- 
ond Dramatic  Period,  287-288;  Third 
Dramatic  Period,  380-381.  Conclu- 
sion, 382-397 

Sussex,  Shirleys  of,  8,  10,  n-14,  33 

Swinburne,  A.  C,  6,  84-85,  174,  202, 
216-219,  226,  232-233,  260-261,  371, 
397.  450-453 

Theatrum     Poctarum.       See     Phillips, 

Edward 
Thorndikc,  A.  H.,  304,  305.  453 
Three  to  One.     See  Peeke,  Richard 


Tierney,  M.  A.,  11,  453 

Tirso  de  Molina,  263,  264,  268-270, 
324.  383.  450 

To  the  Reader,  409 

Tourneur,  Cyril,  219 

Toy,   The,  Prologue  to,  93-94 

Tragedies,  5 

Tragedies  of  Chapman,  The.  See  Leh- 
man 

Tragedy.     See  Thorndike 

Tragedy,  Romantic.  See  Romantic  trag- 
edy 

Tragicomedy,  247,  252,  263,  275,  280, 
281,  284,  286,  288,  304,  327,  371 

Tragicomedy,  English.     See  Ristine 

Traitor,  The,  43,  69,  81-82,  90,  101, 
108,  126,  145,  154,  155,  165,  168,  169, 
174,  183,  184,  198-220,  221,  222,  225, 
227,  237,  238,  241,  247,  260,  379,  381, 
388,  393,  396,  403,  414,  418,  419,  420, 
428,  432,  434,  443,  445,  451-452,  454 

Transcript  of  the  Registers  of  ...  S. 
Mary  Woolnoth  and  S.  Mary  Wool- 
church  Haw.  See  St.  Mary  Wool- 
church 

Treadle,  Sir  Nicholas  (in  The  Witty 
Fair  One),    188-190,    197,   238,   393 

Triumph  of  Beauty,  The,  139,  409,  412, 
419.   434 

Triumph  of  Peace,  The,  4,  79-81,  90, 
101,  120,  145,  241,  403,  419,  420,  433, 
437.   456 

Tupper,   James  W.,  453 

Turner,  Henry,  127,  130,  147,  385 

Twelfth  Night,   180,  191,  303 

Two  Bookes  of  Epigrammes.  See  Ban- 
croft, Thomas 

Two  Gentlemen  of  Verona,  180,  325 

Union  Theological  Seminary,  Library 
of,  444 

Vainman  (in  The  Example),  258,  393 
Vega-Carpio,  Lope  de,  4,  247,  249-250, 

450,  453-454 
Via   ad  Latinam   Linguam    Complanata, 

141-142,   153.  161,  409-410,  434 
Visitation  of  London,   14,  38,  435,  445, 

454 
Vittori    (in   The   Young  Admiral),   250, 

395 
Volpone,   186,    190,  259 

Ward,  Sir  A.  W.,  6,  7,  28,  32,  38,  40, 

43.   85,   137,    152,   229,  233,   363,   371, 

384,  421,  429,  430,  454-455 

Warwickshire,     Shirleys  of,    8-10,    33, 

'5i.  447-448 

Webster,   John,    5,    173,  201,    218,    219, 

361,  383.   396,  449 


[470] 


INDEX 


Wedding,  The,  38,  39,  40-42,  69,  74, 
75,  90,  101,  145,  165,  169,  170,  177- 
181,  182,  183,  187,  190,  221,  222,  237, 
257.  3i7.  388,  391.  392,  394.  401,  402, 
413,  419,  433,  434.  4S4.  455.  459 

Whitaker,  R.,   104,   107,  408 

White  Friars,  138,  158,  160,  161 

Whitelocke,  B.,  80,  456 

Wife's  Relief:  or,  The  Husband's  Cure, 
The,  415,  417 

Wild  Goose  Chase,  The,  168 

Williams,    J.,    102,    104,    106,    124,    244, 

407.  430 

Wilson,  H.  B.,  91,  456 

Winstanley,  W.,  456 

Witty  Fair  One,  The,  41,  69,  74,  75, 
90,  101,  145,  156,  165,  169,  183,  184- 
191,  195,  197,  198,  221,  229,  237,  253, 
338,  387.  388,  391.  393,  402-403,  419, 
420,  428,  433 

Women  actors,  76 

Wood,  Anthony  a,  6,  8,  10,  11,  16,  20, 
21,  22,  23,  24,  25,  26,  27,  28,  30,  31, 


32.  35.  9i.  136,  137-138,  152-153, 
153-154,  158,  162,  384,  385,  401,  423, 
424,  425,  426,  427,  429,  435,  456,  456- 
458 

Wood,  Anthony  a,  Life  of,  457-458 

Works  and  Poems  of  James  Shirley, 
The  Dramatic,  418-419,  422,  427,  429, 
432,  434.  See:  American  Quarterly 
Review;  Dyce;  Gifford;  Quarterly  Re- 
view; Shirley 

Works  of  Mr.  John  Oldham,  The.  See 
Oldham 

Wright,  A.,  435 

Wright,   James,   427,   458-459 

Wycherley,  William,  5 

York,  133,  135 

York's    Servants,    The    Duke    of.      See 

Servants 
Young  Admiral,  The,  4,  71,  72,  73-74, 

90,  95,   101,   114,   120,   132,   144,    168, 

239.  242,  247-252,  253,  275,  288,  325. 

389.  394.  395.  404,  419,  434,  450,  454 


C47I] 


— n  o  is   s 


rt-imixm.nWL  j^.ijjwuan.iw'  jftiuwuan.v&v  ^rjnniw.cmxvv 


^Anvaan-^      y0AHvaaiH^        ^TiiaaNV-soi5^ 


^•LIBRARYOc 


^OdlTVJ-JO^ 


^•LIBRARYQ^ 


'%(jf(un\n.jf\V' 


*WEUNIVER%.       AvlOS-AMCElfj> 


^•IIBRARY^ 

— — 


^ 


^0F-CAL!F0% 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


\ 


#Anvasn-# 


WE-UNIVERto 


^  - 
*% 


f 


$E-UNIVERS//> 


31 


#u 


ftUONY-SOl^ 


$ 


,0KAUF(% 


jMUBRARYOc.        <$t 


<^f 


ORION     nrrnc'Sa 
LD/URU  uu  i5 


WSIOIM-    DEC 

HENEWAL    nrQ 
ID  URL 


VDfURU 


BEC'DLfi  tv!A^[ 


4 1988 


1988 


1  9 


'ALIF0% 

ft 

vHan-T^ 


NV-S01^ 
NIVERS//, 


I 
NV-SOV^ 


RAR 


ALIFORfc 


ff 


S      <" 


^ 


ft 


tfE-UK'IVEf: 


ZZ 


<$HIBRARY. 


HIBRARYflr  \\E-UNIVER% 


>- 


fCAllFO/, 

>   v7Tl  / 


^OFCAllF0% 


^WEUNIVEf 


^ 


§v£v.  iLrf:i   ; 


3  1158  01272  1188 


>i     ■&. 


<M 


,aMIRRARY/V 


J  JC  I      JKI  1 


=o 


.^SOUTHERN 


ii/HH/i/i.,r.rfG,o^L 


Willi 
w  ooo 


['SfWRVFAC/L/TY 


i?    £ 


366  903 


wn/Ml 


llll    II   , 


I 


r>i 


TVDJO^      ^ 

l/t      ^ 

11  __/ 

f_u     w* 

>    30 

=    v 

k> 

. 

& 


li. 


3WV 


■• 


I     =3 


^1 


-<\4f  IlkllVPDC/ 


i  r\r  i  urn  r«* 


,r   ri  , 


-- 


^WEl'NIVEI% 


O 


